(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"



^fortlf (Earolma (Exmrte 



H. 0, DGCIJW 

MAY lo c ~ 

. . 
■ ■■ i 



/ 



1985-85 




JVnnual ^Report 

of tl|C 

JVbmmtstrattOe (ifftce of ttje Courts 



The Cover. The Anson County Courthouse in Wadesboro, North Carolina, representative of the 
Beaux- Arts phase of the Neo-Classical Revival style, was completed in 1914. The structure is 
two-and-one-half stories high and is composed of a main block with north and south wings 
faced with pedimented porticoes. The main facade is fronted by a portico surmounted by a 
frontispiece which bears the seal of North Carolina and the construction date. The County of 
Anson is located in the south central region of the State, adjacent to South Carolina. Wadesboro 
was established in 1783 as the county seat. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 

1985-86 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1986nort 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the Twentieth 
Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986. 

Fiscal year 1985-86 marks the second consecutive year with significant increases in filings and dispositions in 
both the Superior and District Courts. During 1985-86, as compared to 1984-85, total case filings increased by 
6.7% in Superior Court and by 8.7% in District Court; dispositions increased by 4.5% in Superior Court and by 
6.3% in District Court. Because the rate of increase in filings was greater than the rate of increase in dispositions, 
more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and writing 
required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal responsibilities 
were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. The principal burden 
of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each 
of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals 
provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Franklin Freeman, Jr. 
Director 

December, 1986 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Parti 
The 1985-86 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1985-86 Judicial Year in Review 1 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations in 1985-86 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 

The Present Court System 7 

Organization and Operations 

The Supreme Court 11 

The Court of Appeals 23 

The Superior Courts 31 

The District Courts 34 

District Attorneys 37 

Clerks of Superior Court 40 

Juvenile Services Division 42 

Public Defenders 44 

Appellate Defender 45 

The N.C. Courts Commission 46 

The Judicial Standards Commission 48 

Part III 

Court Resources in 1985-86 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 51 

Expenditures 54 

Receipts 56 

Distribution of Receipts 57 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 60 

Judicial Department Personnel 67 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1985-86 

Trial Courts Case Data 71 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 75 

District Court Division Caseflow Data 135 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations in 1985-86 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 7 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 10 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 11 

Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 13 

Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 14 

Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 14 

Supreme Court, Caseload Types 15 

Supreme Court, Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 16 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 16 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 17 

Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 18 

Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 18 

Supreme Court, Pending Cases 19 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 

1979-80—1985-86 20 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1979-80—1985-86 21 

Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 22 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 23 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 25 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 26 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 27 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Motions and Petitions 28 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1980 — 1985-86 29 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 30 

Judges of Superior Court 31 

District Court Judges 34 

District Attorneys 37 

Clerks of Superior Court 40 

Chief Court Counselors 43 

Public Defenders 44 

Appellate Defenders 45 

The N.C. Courts Commission 46 

The Judicial Standards Commission 48 

Part III 

Court Resources in 1985-86 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 51 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 52 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All 

State Agencies and Judicial Department 53 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 54 

Judicial Department Receipts 56 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 57 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 58 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 61 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 62 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 63 

Judicial Department Personnel 67 

Part IV 
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1985-86 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 76 

Superior Courts, Caseload 77 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 78 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 79 

Superior Courts, Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 80 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 81 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition i 85 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 86 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Pending 90 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 94 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 98 

Superior Courts, Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 99 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 1 03 

Superior Courts, Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 1 04 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 105 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies 109 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By County 110 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 114 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By County 115 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Pending 119 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed 1 26 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 136 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 137 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 138 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 1 39 

District Courts, Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 140 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 141 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 145 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By County 146 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending 153 

District Courts, Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed 157 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal /Transfer Cases Pending 161 

District Courts, Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal /Transfer Cases Disposed 165 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 1 69 

District Courts, Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions 171 



in 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters 175 

District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 1 80 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 181 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 1 85 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 189 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 190 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending 194 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed 198 



IV 



PARTI 



THE 1985-1986 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1985-86 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's Judi- 
cial Department is for the fiscal year which began July 1, 
1985 and ended June 30, 1986. 

The Workload of the Courts 

Case filings in the Supreme Court totaled 209 compared 
with 227 filed during 1984-85. A total of 733 petitions were 
filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 620 in 1984-85; 
and 1 29 petitions were allowed, compared with 1 1 1 in 
1984-85. 

For the Court of Appeals for 1985-86, case filings were 
1,381 compared with 1,375 for the 1984-85 year. Petitions 
filed in 1985-86 totaled 546, compared with 484 during the 
1984-85 year. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts are included in 
Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
increased by 6.7% to a total of 9 1 ,336 in 1985-86, compared 
with 85,569 cases in 1984-85. Superior court case disposi- 
tions also increased, to a total of 88,089 compared with 
84,334 in 1984-85. As case filings during the year exceeded 
case dispositions, the total number of cases pending at the end 
of the year increased by 3,247. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) during 1985-86 was 1,682,321, an 
increase of 127,702 (8.2%) from 1984-85 filings of 
1,554,619 cases. Much of this increase is attributable to 
increases in the motor vehicle criminal case category, with 
67, 1 74 cases (8.7%) more than the number of motor vehicle 
criminal cases in 1 984-85; the civil magistrate case category, 
21,973 cases (10.8%) more than the number of civil magis- 
trate cases in 1984-85; and the general civil case category, 
4,899 cases ( 1 1 .4%) more than the number of general civil 
cases in 1984-85. 

Operations of the superior and district courts are summar- 
ized in Part II of this Report, and detailed information on the 
caseloads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial districts is 
presented in Part rv. 

1986 Legislative Highlights 

Constitutional Amendment 

The General Assembly approved an amendment for sub- 
mission to a vote by the people at the November, 1986 
General Election. The amendment concerns the time when 
an election must be held to fill the offices of Supreme Court 
Justice, Court of Appeals Judge, Superior or District Court 
Judge, District Attorney, or Clerk of Superior Court after a 
vacancy in any of these offices has been filled by appoint- 
ment of the Governor. The proposed constitutional amend- 
ment provided that the offices would be filled at the next 
general election held more than sixty days after the vacancy 



occurred, rather than thirty days as presently provided. (At the 
November, 1986 General Election, this proposed 
amendment to Article IV, Sec. 19 of the State Constitution 
was approved by the voters.) 

District Court Judge Vacancies 

G.S. 7 A- 142, providing that the Governor will fill vacan- 
cies on the district court bench by appointment from a list of 
nominees provided by the district bar, was amended to 
require the Governor to make such appointments within 60 
days after the bar submits nominations. The amended statute 
also provides that if a district bar had submitted nominations 
for a vacancy before the new law became effective, the 
Governor must make those appointments within 60 days 
from the effective date of the act. The act became effective on 
July 14, 1986. 

Superior Court Elections 

Chapter 957, 1986 Session Laws, effective July 9, 1986, 
amended G.S. 163- 106(d) to eliminate the numbered-seat 
system for election of superior court judges. 

A further statutory amendment provided that when two 
superior court seats with terms of different lengths in the 
same district must be filled at the same election, the full terms 
and expired terms are treated as different offices, and candi- 
dates may file for only one of the offices (Chapter 986, 1986 
Session Laws); but if Chapter 986 is not pre-cleared under 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, then in elections 
in which seats are unnumbered, candidates with the most 
votes get the longer terms (Chapter 987, 1986 Session Laws). 
(Note: Chapter 986 has been pre-cleared.) 

Salaries 

The General Assembly provided for salary increases for all 
officials and employees of the judicial department. Chapter 
1 1 4, 1 986 Session Laws, specifically sets out the salaries of 
justices and judges, distict attorneys, public defenders, clerks 
and assistant and deputy clerks of superior court, and magis- 
trates. The salaries of assistant district attorneys and assistant 
public defenders are to be established by district attorneys 
and public defenders respectively, subject to the statutory 
average salary limits and to the approval of the Administra- 
tive Officer of the Courts. Permanent employees of the judi- 
cial department not listed in Chapter 1014 received an 
across-the-board increase of $900 and are eligible for merit 
increases if they have been employed by the state for two or 
more years. 

When a senior regular resident superior court judge 
becomes unable to perform his duties because of mental or 
physical incapacity, and another judge is appointed as a 
replacement on a temporary basis under G.S. 7 A-41, Chap- 
ter 1 1 4, Section 33 provides that the replacement judge will 



THE 1985-86 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



receive the increased salary normally paid to a senior regular 
resident superior court judge, and the judge whom he repla- 
ces will receive the salary of a superior court judge. 

Chapter 1014. Section 223 also amended G.S. 7A- 
1 " 1 . 1 (. a ) to add a new section providing that a magistrate 
\\ ith specified experience as a law enforcement officer or 
assistant or deputy clerk may be employed at a starting salary 
equivalent to that received by a magistrate with five-to-seven 
years' experience. This amendment applies only to magis- 
trates initially appointed on or after July 1, 1986. 

Finally. Section 224 of Chapter 1014 provides that "ser- 
vice" for the purpose of computation of longevity pay for a 
district attorney includes periods of employment as an assist- 
ant district attorney. 

New Positions 

Funding was allocated to support a previously authorized 
district court judgeship in the 10th Judicial District. Funding 
was also appropriated for the following additional positions 
in the judicial department: six assistant public defenders, 
seven magistrates, one paralegal and one secretary for a 
public defender's office, seven secretaries for district court 
judges, and twenty-one deputy clerks. 

Child Support 

In response to changes in federal law, the General Assem- 
bly passed three acts designed to improve child support 
collection procedures. 

Expedited Procedures: Chapter 993, 1986 Session Laws, 
requires district court judges to dispose of child support 
claims within 60 days unless certain exceptions apply. Judi- 
cial districts which do not meet this time standard are subject 
to a federal requirement for establishment of expedited 
procedures as a condition to receiving federal funds, and the 
act sets forth expedited child support procedures to apply in 
such districts. Under these procedures, either a magistrate or 
the clerk of superior court (as designated by the chief district 
court judge, the Administrative Officer of the Courts, and the 
clerk j will initially hear and decide both child support claims 
and efforts to enforce child support orders. Parties may 
appeal the magistrate's or clerk's decision to a district court 
judge, who conducts a new hearing. In child support cases 
involving disputes over custody, visitation, or other complex 
issues, however, the clerk or magistrate issues only a tempor- 
ary support order. The case is then transferred to district court 
and given priority over other district court cases. 

Income Withholding: Chapter 949, 1986 Session Laws, 
establishes procedures for withholding wages and other 
incomes when a person under court order to pay child sup- 
port is one month or more in arrearage. In IV-D cases, a 
district court hearing is required only if the obligated parent 
requests a hearing and was unable to resolve the issue by 
agreement. In non-IV-D cases, withholding must be initiated 
by district court order, but in all cases the act limits the 
grounds on which the judge may find that withholding should 
not be ordered. 

Child Support Guidelines: The General Assembly directed 
the Conference of Chief District Court Judges to establish 
advisory guidelines for judges to use in computing child 
support amounts (Chapter 1 1 6, 1 986 Session Laws) (effec- 
tive October 1, 1987;. 



Victim and Witness Assistance 

An act was passed to provide at least one "victim and 
witness assistant" to each of the 35 district attorney offices 
(Chapter 998, 1986 Session Laws). The act establishes spe- 
cific rights and services for crime victims and witnesses in 
criminal cases. Victim and witness assistants will be respon- 
sible for coordinating services provided by law enforcement 
and judicial systems. Such services include securing prompt 
return of property and providing information about sche- 
duled proceedings, medical assistance, physical protection, 
witness fees, dispositions, and parole or other proceedings 
that may result in release from custody of certain felons. The 
Conference of District Attorneys is to assist in implementing 
and supervising the program, and, along with the Administra- 
tive Officer of the Courts, report annually to the Joint Legisla- 
tive Commission on Governmental Operations. 

Investigative Grand Juries 

The General Assembly authorized investigative grand jur- 
ies in drug trafficking cases (Chapter 843, 1986 Session 
Laws). Heretofore, grand juries have had almost no investiga- 
tive authority in North Carolina. Upon request of a district 
attorney and concurrence of the Attorney General, a special 
three judge panel appointed by the Chief Justice will deter- 
mine whether an investigative grand jury should be con- 
vened. District attorneys are authorized to grant immunity to 
witnesses who refuse to testify, and refusal thereafter is puni- 
shable as contempt of court. Testimony heard by the grand 
jury is to be recorded by a court reporter. 

Infractions Law Changes 

The General Assembly extended the effective date of 
decriminalization of minor traffic offenses from July 1, 1986, 
to September 1, 1986 (Chapter 852, 1986 Session Laws). 
This act also provides a defendant with a jury trial in superior 
court after an appeal from district court, unless the defendant 
consents to trial without a jury. 

Court Costs 

The General Assembly amended G.S. 7A-304(a)(3) to 
increase criminal court costs by $3.00, effective January 1, 
1987. The increased fees will be used for law enforcement 
retirement funds. 

G.S. 7 A- 307, which provides for assessment of $.40 per 
$ 1 00 of the gross estate in administration of trusts under 
wills, was also amended. The amendment prohibits this 
assessment on personal property administered under a 
testamentary trust if the will was administered in North 
Carolina; and instead, a fee of $ 1 is assessed on the filing of 
each annual and final account in such trusts. The new law 
took effect on July 1 , 1 986, and applies to personal property 
received under a will on or after that date. 

Appropriations 

The 1986 Session of the General Assembly appropriated a 
total of $146,394,689 to the Judicial Department for the 
1986-87 fiscal year. Of this amount, $9,449,333 is for pri- 
vate assigned counsel fees for representing indigents. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1985-86 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial 
system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjust- 
ment. Through the years, there has been a repeated sequence 
of critical examination, proposals for reform, and finally the 
enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1 700 the royal governor established a General (or 
Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed over 
the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly con- 
ceded to the King the right to name the chief justice but 
unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint the 
associate justices. Other controversies developed concerning 
the creation and jurisdiction of the courts and the tenure of 
judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position was that 
judge appointments should be for good behavior as against 
the royal governor's decision for life appointment. State his- 
torians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight to estab- 
lish courts and the judicial structure in the province was 
grounded on laws enacted by the legislature," which was 
more familiar with local conditions and needs (Lefler and 
Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated 
between periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like 
good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which 
contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) 
and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enactments 
were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate system 
was framed by legislation in 1 767 to last five years. It was not 
renewed because of persisting disagreement between local 
and royal partisans. As a result, North Carolina was without 
higher courts until after Independence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, judicial 
and county government administrative functions were com- 
bined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who were 
appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1 776, the colonial 
structure of the court system was retained largely intact. The 
Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the county court 
which continued in use from about 1 670 to 1 868 — were still 
held by the assembled justices of the peace in each county. 
The Justices were appointed by the governor on the recom- 
mendation of the General Assembly, and they were paid out 
of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial 
system, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held by 
justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the county court 
was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1 776 empowered the General 
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law 
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized three 
superior court judges and created judicial districts. Sessions 
were supposed to be held in the court towns of each district 
twice a year, under a system much like the one that had 
expired in 1 772. Just as there had been little distinction in 
terminology between General Court and Supreme Court 
prior to the Revolution, the terms Supreme Court and Super- 
ior Court were also interchangeable during the period imme- 
diately following the Revolution. 



One of the most vexing governmental problems confront- 
ing the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary. "From 
its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused complaint 
and demands for reform." (Lefler and Newsome, 291, 292.) 
Infrequency of sessions, conflictingjudge opinions, an insuf- 
ficient number of judges, and lack of means for appeal were 
all cited as problems, although the greatest weakness was 
considered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1 779, the legislature required the Superior Court judges 
to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference to 
resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts. This 
court was continued and made permanent by subsequent 
laws. The justices were required to put their opinions in 
writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of Confer- 
ence was changed in name to the Supreme Court in 1 805 and 
authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the influence 
of the English legal system, however, there was still no 
conception of an alternative to judges sitting together to hear 
appeals from cases which they had themselves heard in the 
districts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 
1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme Court 
was created for review of cases decided at the Superior Court 
level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each 
county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was 
divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges were 
to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as before. 

The County Court of justices of the peace continued dur- 
ing this period as the lowest court and as the agency of local 
government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it 
more democratic were made in 1 868. A primary holdover 
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction 
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The 
County Court's control of local government was abolished. 
Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary and 
rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of punishment 
was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to reform the 
offender, and thus prevent crime." The membership of the 
Supreme Court was raised to five, and the selection of the 
justices (including the designation of the chief justice) and 
superior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken 
from the legislature and given to the voters, although vacan- 
cies were to be filled by the governor until the next election. 
The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County 
Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a 
quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities were 
divided beween the Superior Courts and the individual justi- 
ces of the peace, who were retained as separate judicial 
officers with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Consti- 
tution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court justices 
to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. The General 
Assembly was given the power to appoint justices of the 
peace, instead of the governor. Most of the modernizing 
changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, however, were 
left, and the judicial structure it had established continued 
without systematic modification through more than half of 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



the 20th century. (A further constitutional amendment 
approved by the voters in November, 1888, returned the 
Supreme Court membership to five, and the number of super- 
ior court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time system- 
atic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This accrual 
of piecemeal change and addition to the court system was 
more evident at the lower, local court level, where hundreds 
of courts specially created by statute operated with widely 
dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. 

By 1965. when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North Carolina 
consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, with appellate 
jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with general trial jurisdic- 
tion: (c) the local statutory courts of limited jurisdiction, and 
(d) justices of the peace and mayor's courts, with petty 
jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided into 
30 judicial districts and 2 1 solicitorial districts. The 38 super- 
ior court judges (who rotated among the counties) and the 
district solicitors were paid by the State. The clerk of superior 
court, who was judge of probate and often also a juvenile 
judge, was a county official. There were specialized branches 
of superior court in some counties for matters like domestic 
relations and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of 
these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type 
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, 
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's courts; 
the general county courts, county criminal courts and special 
county courts; the domestic relations courts and the juvenile 
courts. Some of these had been established individually by 
special legislative acts more than a half-century earlier. Oth- 
ers had been created by general law across the State since 
1919. About half were county courts and half were city or 
township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly 
traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes civil 
matters. The judges, who were usually part-time, were var- 
iously elected or appointed locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and some 
925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar criminal 
jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up to a $50 fine 
or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace also had civil 
jurisdiction of minor cases. These court officials were com- 
pensated by the fees they exacted, and they provided their 
own facilities. 

Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision of 
the court system received the attention and support of Gov- 
ernor Luther H. Hodges in 1 957, who encouraged the leader- 
ship of the North Carolina Bar Association to pursue the 
matter. A Court Study Committee was established as an 
agency of the North Carolina Bar Association, and that 
Committee issued its report, calling for reorganization, at the 



end of 1 958. A legislative Constitutional Commission, which 
worked with the Court Study Committee, finished its report 
early the next year. Both groups called for the structuring of 
an all-inclusive court system which would be directly state- 
operated, uniform in its organization throughout the State 
and centralized in its administration. The plan was for a 
simplified, streamlined and unified structure. A particularly 
important part of the proposal was the elimination of the 
local statutory courts and their replacement by a single Dis- 
trict Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be 
abolished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate 
would function within the District Court as a subordinate 
judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the legisla- 
ture in 1959 but these failed to gain the required three-fifths 
vote of each house. The proposals were reintroduced and 
approved at the 1961 session. The Constitutional amend- 
ments were approved by popular vote in 1962, and three 
years later the General Assembly enacted statutes to put the 
system into effect by stages. By the end of 1970 all of the 
counties and their courts had been incorporated into the new 
system, whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name, 
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 20th 
century judicial system as a single, statewide "court," with 
components for various types and levels of caseload, was 
adapted from North Carolina's earlier General Court, whose 
full venue extended to all of the 1 7th century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued. In 
1 965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the crea- 
tion of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was amended 
again in 1 972 to allow for the Supreme Court to censure or 
remove judges upon the recommendation of a Judicial 
Standards Commission. As for the selection of judges, per- 
sistent efforts were made in the 1970's to obtain legislative 
approval of amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint 
judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by 
popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments received 
the backing of a majority of the members of each house, but 
not the three-fifths required to submit constitutional amend- 
ments to a vote of the people. It seems likely that this signifi- 
cant issue will be before the General Assembly again for 
consideration. 



Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court ( Delivered 

in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 
Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina 1965 Edition. 
Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina- The 

History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 
Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative 

History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. 
Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law and 

Equity Prior to IH6H. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



Recommendations j 

from Judicial ' 

Standards Commission | 



SUPREME 
COURT 

7 Justices 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felony cases; civil 
cases in excess of 
$10,000* 




SUPERIOR 
COURTS 

72 Judges 




Final Order of I 
Utilities Commission in 
General Rate Case I 



i 



COURT OF 
APPEALS 

/ 2 Judges 



Decisions of 

Most Administrative 

Agencies 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, 
adoptions, partitions, 
foreclosures, etc.) 



'(2) 

\l 



criminal cases 
(for trial de novo) 


civil cases 
1 


\ 


DISTRICT 
COURTS 

146 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



Magistrates 

(631) 



Decisions of Industrial 

Commission, State Bar, 

Property Tax Commission, 

Commissioner of Insurance, 

Bd. of State Contract Appeals 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not 
assigned to magistrates; 
probable cause hearings; 
civil cases $ 1 0,000* or 
less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain 
misdemeanor guilty 
pleas: worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or 
less; small claims $1,500 
or less** 



( 1 ) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving constitutional questions, and 
cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals decisions in cases of 
significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3 ) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment, and 
in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases appeal as of right is to the Court 
of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court 
of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242 ). However, the district court division is the proper division 
for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $ 1 0,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper division for the trial of civil 
actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 

*Magistrate jurisdiction in small claims cases increased from $1,000 to $1,500 effective October 1, 1985. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution establishes 
the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute a unified 
judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, operation, and 
administration, and shall consist of an Appellate Division, a 
Superior Court Division, and a District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme Court 
and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the superior 
courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 100 
counties of the State. The counties are grouped into judicial 
districts (34 at the present time), and one or more superior 
court judges are elected for each of the judicial districts. A 
clerk of the superior court for each county is elected by the 
voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts and 
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district court 
must sit in at least one place in each county. The General 
Assembly has provided that districts for purposes of the 
district court are co-terminous with superior court judicial 
districts. The Constitution also provides for one or more 
magistrates to be appointed in each county "who shall be 
officers of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains the 
term, "judicial department," stating that "The General 
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial 
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully per- 
tains to it as a co-ordinate department of the government, nor 
shall it establish or authorize any courts other than as permit- 
ted by this Article." The terms, "General Court of Justice" 
and "Judicial Department" are almost, but not quite, syn- 
onymous. It may be said that the Judicial Department 
encompasses all of the levels of court designated as the 
General Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary 
services within the Judicial Department. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between the 
several levels of court in North Carolina's system of courts 
are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original jurisdic- 
tion of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses are 
tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to accept pleas 
of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines in accordance 
with a schedule set by the Conference of Chief District Court 
Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors are by district court 
j udges, who also hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings 
in felony cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction 
of the superior courts. 

Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district 
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury availa- 
ble at the district court level; appeal from the district courts' 
judgments in criminal cases is to the superior courts for trial 



de novo before a jury. Except in life imprisonment or death 
sentence cases (which are appealed to the Supreme Court), 
appeal from the superior courts is to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of 
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and estates 
matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over such special 
proceedings as adoptions, partitions, condemnations under 
the authority of eminent domain, and foreclosures. Rulings of 
the clerk may be appealed to the superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for involun- 
tary commitment to a mental hospital, and are the "proper" 
courts for general civil cases where the amount in controv- 
ersy is $ 1 0,000 or less. If the amount in controversy is $ 1 ,500 
or less and the plaintiff in the case so requests, the chief 
district court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a 
magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to the 
district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is available in the 
district courts; appeal from the judgment of a district court in 
a civil case is to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is more 
than $ 1 0,000. Appeals from decisions of most administrative 
agencies are first within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. 
Appeal from the superior courts in civil cases is to the Court 
of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of the 
other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 7A-32ft>)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, the 
North Carolina General Statutes provide certain Judicial 
Department officials with specific powers and responsibili- 
ties for the operation of the court system. The Supreme Court 
has the responsibility for prescribing rules of practice and 
procedures for the appellate courts and for prescribing rules 
for the trial courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. 
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of the 
judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in 
turn is responsible for scheduling the sessions of the Court of 
Appeals. 

The chart on page 1 illustrates specific responsibilities for 
administration of the trial courts vested in Judicial Depart- 
ment officials by statute. The Chief Justice appoints the 
Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts; this Assistant Director also serves as the 
Chief Justice's administrative assistant. The schedule of 
sessions of superior court in the 100 counties is set by 
the Supreme Court; assignment of the State's rotating super- 
ior court judges is the responsibility of the Chief 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a chief district 
court judge for each of the State's 34 judicial districts from 
among the elected district court judges of the respective 
districts. These judges have responsibilities for the scheduling 
of the district courts and magistrates' courts within their 
respective districts, along with other administrative 
responsibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible for 
direction of non-judicial, administrative and business affairs 
of the Judicial Department. Included among its functions are 
fiscal management, personnel services, information and sta- 
tistical services, supervision of record keeping in the trial 
court clerks' offices, liaison with the legislative and executive 
departments of government, court facility evaluation, pur- 
chase and contract, education and training, coordination of 



the program for provision of legal counsel to indigent 
persons, juvenile probation and after-care, trial court admin- 
istrator services, planning, and general administrative 
services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk for 
both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the clerk 
also served as chairman of the county's calendar committee, 
which set the civil case calendars. Effective July 1, 1980, 
these committees were eliminated; day-to-day calendaring 
of civil cases is now done by the clerk of superior court or by a 
"trial court administrator" in some districts, under the super- 
vision of the senior resident superior court judge and chief 
district court judge. The criminal case calendars in both 
superior and district courts are set by the district attorney of 
the respective district. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 



(34) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



2 

i 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



L 



(35) District 
Attorneys 




(34) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who 
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from the judges elected in 
the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective 
courts. 

'In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping 
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the 
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk 
of superior court. 



(0 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 
LOUIS B. MEYER 
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 

Associate Justices 



HARRY C. MARTIN 

HENRY E. FRYE 

RHODA B. BILLINGS 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



I. BEVERLY LAKE 
DAN K. MOORE 
WALTER E. BROCK 



J. FRANK HUSKINS 

DAVID M. BRITT 

J. WILLIAM COPELAND 



Clerk 
J. Gregory Wallace 

Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



*Asof30June 1986. 



II 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to con- 
sider and decide questions of law presented in civil and 
criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six associate 
justices are elected to eight-year terms by the voters of the 
State. There are two terms of the Supreme Court each year: a 
Spring Term commencing on the first Tuesday in February 
and a Fall Term commencing on the first Tuesday in Sep- 
tember. The Court does not sit in panels. It sits only en banc, 
that is. all members sitting on each case. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges upon 
the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial Stand- 
ards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdiction includes: 

- cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(cases involving substantial constitutional questions 
and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court 
of Appeals); 

- cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commission 
(cases involving final order or decision in a general rate 
matter); 

- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sent- 
enced to death or life imprisonment); and 

- cases in which review has been granted in the Supreme 
Court's discretion. 

Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly from 
the trial courts may be granted when delay would likely 
cause substantial harm or when the workload of the Appel- 
late Division is such that the expeditious administration of 
justice requires it. However, most appeals are heard only after 
review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and 
control the proceedings of the other courts of the General 
Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to prescribe 
the rules of practice and procedure for the trial court div- 
isions, consistent with any rules enacted by the General 
Assembly. The schedule of superior court sessions in the 1 00 
counties is approved yearly, by the Supreme Court. The 
Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Librarian of the Supreme 
Court Library, and the Appellate Division Reporter are 
appointed by the Supreme Court. 



The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and an 
Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the Chief 
Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from among the 
judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief District Court 
Judge from among the district judges in each of the State's 34 
judicial districts. He assigns superior court judges, who regu- 
larly rotate from district to district, to the scheduled sessions 
of superior court in the 100 counties, and he is also empo- 
wered to transfer district court judges to other districts for 
temporary or specialized duty. The Chief Justice appoints 
three of the seven members of the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission — a judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the 
Commission's chairman, one superior court judge and one 
district court judge. The Chief Justice appoints six of the 24 
voting members of the N.C. Courts Commission: one asso- 
ciate justice of the Supreme Court; one Court of Appeals 
judge; two superior court judges; and two district court 
judges. The Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate 
Defender, and the Chief Hearing Officer of the Office of 
Administrative Hearings. 

Expenses of the Court, 1985-86 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1985-86 fiscal year amounted to $2,063,229, an increase of 
11.8% over total 1984-85 expenditures of $1,845,637. 
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1985-86 consti- 
tuted 1 .5% of all General Fund expenditures for the operation 
of the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. 

Case Data, 1985-86 

A total of 378 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, 1 69 that were pending on July 1 , 
1985 plus 209 cases filed through June 30, 1986. A total of 
221 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 157 cases 
pending on June 30, 1986. 

A total of 873 petitions (requests to appeal) were before 
the Court during the 1 985-86 year, with 746 disposed during 
the year and 127 pending as of June 30, 1986. The Court 
granted more petitions for review ( 1 29) during 1 985-86 than 
in any prior year. 

More detailed data on the Court's workload is presented 
on the following pages. 



12 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 

July 1, 1985- June 30, 1986 



Petitions for Review 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 

Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 
Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 
Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that become other civil appeals 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 
Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases 
Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of 
administrative agency decision 

Total Appeals 

Other Proceedings 

Rule 1 6(b) additional issues re dissent 

Extraordinary writs 

Advisory opinion 

Rule amendments 

Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 



Pending 






Pending 


7/1/85 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


7 


32 


36 


3 


4 


8 


10 


2 


62 


284 


283 


63 


48 


285 


294 


39 


12 


77 


75 


14 


7 


47 


48 


6 


140 


733 


746 


127 


2 


4 


2 


4 


2 


5 


4 


3 





1 


1 





1 


2 


2 


1 


17 


34 


32 


19 


24 


30 


39 


15 


7 


10 


3 


14 


73 


71 


79 


65 


17 


24 


27 


14 


8 


13 


13 


8 


1 





1 





12 


10 


13 


9 


5 


5 


5 


5 


169 


209 


221 


157 





13 


13 








95 


88 


7 





2 


2 








5 


5 








785 


785 








900 


893 


7 



13 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 

APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1985- JUNE 30, 1986 



CRIMINAL-DEATH 5% 

(10) 

OTHER CIVIL 



CRIMINAL LIFE 




JUVENILE 1%(3) 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



OTHER CRIMINAL 



ADMIN. AGENCY 



PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1985-JUNE 30, 1986 



CRIMINAL 




OTHER CIVIL 



POST-CONVICTION 



ADMIN. AGENCY 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

Supreme Court Caseload Types by Judicial District and Division 
July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Division 


District 


I 


1 




2 




3A 




3B 




4 




5 




6 




7 




8 


SUBTOTAL 




n 


9 




10 




11 




12 




13 




14 




15A 




15B 




16 


SUBTOTAL 




HI 


17A 




17B 




18 




19A 




19B 




20 




21 




22 




23 


SUBTOTAL 




IV 


24 




25 




26 




27A 




27B 




28 




29 




30 


SUBTOTAL 




TOTALS 





Total 


Death 


Life 


Other 


Civil 


Other 


Cases 


Cases 


Cases 


Cases 


Criminal 


Cases 


Cases 


Disposed 


9 





5 





4 





5 


5 


1 


1 


2 


1 





4 


8 


1 


4 


1 


2 





5 


7 





3 


1 


1 


2 


3 


8 


3 


3 


1 





1 


4 


5 


1 





2 


2 





3 


6 


3 


2 


1 











12 


1 


5 


2 


3 


1 


8 


10 


1 


4 


5 








4 


70 


11 


27 


15 


13 


4 


36 


7 


1 


4 





2 





1 


60 


1 


13 


3 


13 


30 


36 


8 





4 


2 


2 





6 


17 





9 


5 


3 





9 


8 


2 


3 


2 


1 





3 


16 


1 


6 


2 


3 


4 


9 


9 


1 


3 


3 


1 


1 


6 


17 





7 


2 


7 


1 


11 


17 


6 


5 


4 


1 


1 


3 


159 


12 


54 


23 


33 


37 


84 


6 


2 


2 


1 


1 





1 


1 








1 











25 


1 


12 


3 


8 


1 


15 


8 


1 


6 





1 





3 


3 


1 


1 


1 








1 


12 


1 


5 


1 


5 





6 


22 


1 


10 


2 


7 


2 


12 


15 


4 


6 





5 





6 


8 





4 


1 


2 


1 


5 


100 


11 


46 


10 


29 


4 


49 


2 





2 














15 





7 


3 


4 


1 


10 


21 





5 


1 


12 


3 


11 


14 


1 


8 


2 


2 


1 


6 


2 





2 














19 


1 


7 


10 


1 





13 


13 


2 


9 


1 


1 





5 


12 


1 


5 


3 


2 


1 


6 


98 


5 


45 


20 


22 


6 


51 



427 



39 



172 



68 



97 



51 



220 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court 
July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



Cases .Argued 

Civil 
Criminal 

Total cases argued 

Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30(d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 

Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



85 
115 

200 



13 


13 

213 



Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court 
July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 









Dismissed/ 


Total 


titions for Review 


Granted* 


Denied 


Withdrawn 


Disposed 


Civil Domestic 


4 


32 





36 


Juvenile 


2 


8 





10 


Other Civil 


49 


231 


3 


283 


Criminal 


55 


237 


2 


294 


Postconviction Remedy 


2 


40 


33 


75 


Administrative Agency Decision 


17 


31 





48 



Total Petitions for Review 



129 



579 



38 



746 



Other Proceedings 

Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues 
Extraordinary Writs 
Advisory Opinion 
Rule Amendments 
Motions 



5 

27 



60 



13 
88 
2 
5 
785 



Total Other Proceedings 



893 



^"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. 



16 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Published Opinion 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 


6 














6 


Juvenile 











2 





2 


Other civil 


17 


3 


7 


18 





45 


Criminal (death sentence) 


3 














3 


Criminal (life sentence) 


61 





1 


9 


5 


76 


Other criminal 


8 


6 


9 


2 





25 


Postconviction remedy 














I 


1 


Administrative agency 














decision 


9 


2 





2 





13 


Total 


104 


11 


17 


33 


6 


171 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision 











Reversed 




Total 


Case Types 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 


Civil domestic 




















Juvenile 


1 














1 


Other civil 


16 


1 


2 


2 





21 


Criminal (death sentence) 




















Criminal (life sentence) 


1 





1 








2 


Other criminal 


8 





1 








9 


Postconviction remedy 




















Administrative agency 














decision 


1 








1 





2 



Total 



27 



35 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 



Case Types 



Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Post-conviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Totals 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 




4 

1 

6 

3 

14 



17 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 

MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1985 -JUNE 30, 1986 



OPINIONS 



DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 6% 

(14) 




PER CURIAM DECISIONS 



TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1985- JUNE 30, 1986 



DENIED 




GRANTED 



DISMISSED/ Wl I HDRAWN 



SO 

oo 

OS 



© 



so 


«M 


op 


O 


>T) 


5/3 


OC 


OS 


Os 


«U 


*M 


on 


s 




co 


s 


Z 


R 


o 
B 


3 


ss 


CO 


w 


ffl 


& 


5/5 


o 


5/3 


Q 


R 


Z 


0£ 


o 


c 

0) 


S 


fr, 


| 


I 

o 


§ 


U 


a 


E 


& 




o 


a 




s 




CO 









in ?►, 

A<§ 



2 | 

OS 



St 



2 R 



o .. 

OS ^ 



so g? 

AS 



M 



© to 

SO >j 

3(3 



© g. 



5 



X£ 






o 

1 

© 


1 

& 


© 

ir> 

A 


to 

I 


© 

IT) 

1 

SO 


US 


© 

SO 

1 

© 


1 



^ *-< 3 



— i o -* 



— < O CT\ 



(N O 00 



^O 



OS 






-* o 



_ r- 



J-H » 



m o cs >— i 



O O "xl- 



O O Tt- 



O *-* i-< 



O O — i 



O O -h 



© 



© 






©> 
m 



© 



^ © 



O —i 



O ^h 



o o o 



o o o 



o o o 



so ir; 



o ^_ 



Tt — i 



r-H O 



o O O £ ^ 



o o o 



o o o 



~ o 



— (-» 






<=> 3 



o 2 



■a 



.S 



o 
U 



2i 

a. 



03 

a. 

D. 

o3 



o 

CO 



£j 

•— 

o 

O 

-a 

o 
c 

oj 

c 



° £ 5 



c 

■s 



o 
_g 
>^ 

"E 
O 
u 

U 

a. 
ex 

03 

co 



•8 1 "H 

U 5 o 



03 

-o 



CU 

u 

c 
<u 

c 

Q 

co 






u u 






> 
c 
o 

o 

CO 

O 



O 

c 

BO 

o3 

0) 

> 



i .2 
'3 g 

< 



o ~ 
o <u 

£ 2 

£?2 
•p <u 

3 <u 
£ do 

<C c 
o 



o 

eo .2 

3 S 

03 C 
co 

< U 



19 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1979-80—1985-86 



400 



B 



Appeals Docketed 
Appeals Disposed of 



300 



243 



N 

I 

M 

B 

H 

R 


F 

C 

.A 

s 

E 

S 



200 



100 




227 




220 



1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 



20 



800 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1979-80—1985-86 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 



617 



612 



600 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 
F 

C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



400 



200 




733 



73 




1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 



21 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases 

(Total time in days from docketing to decision) 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Petitions for review granted that became postconviction remedy cases 

Administrative agency decision 

Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative 
agency decision 

Total appeals 



Number 
of Cases 


(Days) 
Median 


(Days) 
Mean 


2 


— 


303.0 


4 


— 


165.5 


1 


152 


152.0 


2 


— 


259.0 


32 


182 


223.2 


38 


232 


263.5 


3 


602 


534.3 


79 


298 


325.7 


27 


213 


204.0 


13 


185 


248.6 


1 


399 


399.0 


13 


243 


251.6 


5 


559 


497.8 


220 


225 


277.5 



22 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Judge 
R.A. HEDRICK 



Judges 



GERALD ARNOLD 
JOHN WEBB 
HUGH A. WELLS 
WILLIS P. WHICHARD 
CHARLES L. BECTON 
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 



EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 

SIDNEYS. EAGLES, JR. 

JOHN C. MARTIN 

SARAH PARKER 

JACK COZORT 



Retired Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



Retired Judges 



HUGH B. CAMPBELL 
FRANK M. PARKER 
EDWARD B. CLARK 



ROBERT M. MARTIN 

CECIL J. HILL 

MAURICE BRASWELL 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



*Asof30June 1986 



23 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The Court of Appeals 



The I 2-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's inter- 
mediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the appeals 
originating from the State's trial courts. The Court regularly 
sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other locations in the State as 
authorized by the Supreme Court. Sessions outside of 
Raleigh have not been regular or frequent. Judges of the 
Court of Appeals are elected by popular vote for eight-year 
terms. A Chief Judge for the Court is designated by the Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court and serves in that capacity at 
the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the Chief 
Judge responsible for assigning members of the Court to the 
four panels. Insofar as practicable, each judge is to be 
assigned to sit a substantially equal number of times with 
each other judge. The Chief Judge presides over the panel of 
which he or she is a member and designates a presiding judge 
for the other panels. 

One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the 
Judicial Standards Commission. 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial Stand- 
ards Commission to censure or remove from office a justice 
of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) recommendation 
would be considered by the Chief Judge and the six judges 
next senior in service on the Court of Appeals (excluding the 
judge who serves as the Commission's chairman). Such 
seven-member panel would have sole jurisdiction to act upon 
the Commission's recommendation. 

Expenses of the Court, 1985-86 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 
1985-86 fiscal year totalled $2,763,224, an increase of 9.7% 
over 1984-85 expenditures of $2,518,083. Expenditures for 
the Court of Appeals during 1985-86 amounted to 2.0% of 
all General Fund expenditures for operation of the entire 
Judicial Department during the fiscal year. This percentage 
share of the total is the same as the Court of Appeals' 
percentage share of the Judicial Department total in the 
1984-85 fiscal year. 



Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals consists 
of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court also hears 
appeals directly from the Industrial Commission; certain 
final orders or decisions of the North Carolina State Bar; and 
the Commissioner of Insurance; the State Board of Contract 
Appeals; and appeals from certain final orders or decisions of 
the Property Tax Commission. (Appeals from the decisions 
of other administrative agencies lie first within the jurisdic- 
tion of the superior courts.) 



Case Data, 1985-86 

A total of 1 ,38 1 appealed cases were filed before the Court 
of Appeals during the period July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986. 
A total of 1 ,626 cases were disposed of during the same 
period. During 1985-86, a total of 546 petitions and 1,760 
motions were filed before the Court of Appeals. 

Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals is 
shown in the tables and graphs on the following pages. 



24 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions 

Civil cases appealed from district courts 264 

Civil cases appealed from superior courts 524 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 77 

Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 516 

Total 1,381 1,626 



Petitions 

Allowed 150 

Denied 410 

Remanded 

Total 546 560 



Motions 

Allowed 

Denied 

Remanded 

Total 



Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 





1,227 
469 

2 


1,760 


1,698 


3,687 


3,884 



25 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 





Judicial 




Cases Filed 




Other 


Total 
Cases 


Total 

Cases 


Judicial 


Appeals from 


Appeals from 


Superior Court 


Dhision 


District 


District Courts 


Civil 


Criminal 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed 


I 


1 


7 


9 


16 





32 


38 




2 


2 


15 


21 





38 


37 




3 


7 


21 


15 





43 


41 




4 


s 


9 


15 





32 


41 




5 


7 


15 


18 





40 


48 




6 


2 


4 


13 





19 


25 




7 


4 


10 


9 





23 


35 




8 


7 


14 


19 





40 


56 


II 


9 


3 


4 


7 





14 


21 




10 


19 


72 


25 


77 


193 


241 




11 


3 


13 


10 





26 


35 




12 


9 


9 


27 





45 


70 




13 


3 


5 


5 





13 


19 




14 


10 


21 


23 





54 


59 




15A/B* 


14 


19 


16 





49 


54 




16 


4 


6 


25 





35 


30 


III 


17A/B* 


6 


15 


19 





40 


25 




18 


15 


40 


32 





87 


98 




19A/B* 


16 


14 


18 





48 


45 




20 


11 


13 


20 





44 


52 




21 


24 


34 


11 





69 


78 




22 


2 


15 


10 





27 


40 ; 




23 


9 


10 


10 





29 


48 


IV 


24 


2 


6 


3 





11 


18 




25 


II 


II 


20 





42 


56 




26 


27 


50 


48 





125 


147 




27A/B* 


13 


13 


29 





55 


51 




28 


9 


34 


18 





61 


51 




29 


6 


14 


8 





28 


41 




30 


4 


9 


6 





19 


26 



Totals 



264 



524 



516 



77 



1,381 



1,626 



^Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are 

shown. 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



26 



Totals 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 

Cases Disposed by Written Option 











Cases Affirmed 


Total Cases 






Judicial 


Judicial 


Cases 


Cases 


in Part, Reversed 


by Written 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Division 


District 


Affirmed 


Reversed 


in Part 


Opinion 


Disposed 


Disposed 


I 


1 


19 


10 


3 


32 


6 


38 




2 


22 


10 


1 


33 


4 


37 




3 


31 


4 


4 


39 


2 


41 




4 


31 


6 


2 


39 


2 


41 




5 


34 


9 


2 


45 


3 


48 




6 


20 


4 


1 


25 





25 




7 


22 


8 


2 


32 


3 


35 




8 


42 


6 


4 


52 


4 


56 


n 


9 


14 


4 


1 


19 


2 


21 




10 


144 


63 


13 


220 


21 


241 




11 


29 


3 





32 


3 


35 




12 


45 


21 


1 


67 


3 


70 




13 


11 


3 


1 


15 


4 


19 




14 


40 


12 


1 


53 


6 


59 




15A/B* 


34 


10 


4 


48 


6 


54 




16 


20 


7 


1 


28 


2 


30 


m 


17A/B* 


19 


4 


2 


15 





25 




18 


62 


22 


7 


91 


7 


98 




19A/B* 


28 


10 


2 


40 


5 


45 




20 


30 


10 


5 


45 


7 


52 




21 


39 


19 


11 


69 


9 


78 




22 


24 


11 


2 


37 


3 


40 




23 


39 


7 





46 


2 


48 


rv 


24 


12 


3 


1 


16 


2 


18 




25 


36 


12 


5 


53 


3 


56 




26 


96 


32 


12 


140 


7 


147 




27A/B* 


32 


6 


8 


46 


5 


51 




28 


35 


7 


3 


45 


6 


51 




29 


25 


10 


1 


36 


5 


41 




30 


17 


5 


3 


25 


1 


26 



1,052 



338 



103 



1,493 



133 



1,626 



*Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are 
shown. Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



27 



— 




0*1 






3^ 


'— 


— 






s: 


w 


f 


B 


0* 


3 






NN 


l" 


r —m 


1/5 


M 


CC 


fN 


S^ 


U. 


— 


A 




""" 


— 


c 


-. 


Y 


"B 


< 




s. 




Z 




c 




p 




c 




- 




'- 




c 




>- 




2 




c 




- 




2 





a 1 

5 s. 



1 



5 


— 
s 




'S 


'•5 




— 




U 




a. 






1 




* 




c 



1 

i 



I 






.2 « 



.5 ffl 

a a 



3>CXC — ^ in ON 

r- on ^r — ^r no oo on 



oooooooo 



^inoo^t-^j-<Nror^ 
m — cm — ■ 



OOOOOOOO 



in oo oo — i o oo in 

\D MM(NiOOOO\ 



o o o o o o o 



<n no in >* co -rf oo 

co O ^t O co o no 



o o o o o o o 



MXr<-i(N\OiOO(N 



cooooooNOOinNO 



f- CM ^ O OO On NO 



r-~ Tt >o in co i-h in 



cm — ^rcMoo— ■ — in 



cor^r--^rOcM^j-cM 

— CO 



in *3- o r- o i-h it 



O — OO CM CM CO O 



o o o o o o o 



oooooooo 



o o o o o o o 



o o o o o o o 



oor—comONOocco 

CM — CM — 



in — co -h 



o cn co — on r- oo 

CM CM —i 



CO rt r- ON in CM CM 

— ' m — cm —i 



O^hhOOfl- 1 CO 
CM CO nD CO ^f CM CM CM 



inoomoor^o — no 



ON rj no — m — On 
— r~ CO CO "* (N <N 



tj- — i oo r-- cm r~~ in 

CM O CM m CM CM 



— co«NcosOOrf>n 
rl-in — r-ON-^-rf^f 



J] 


-r 


ON ON 


r- co no ^ oo 

MM — i — i 


ft. 








1 1 










-t ro 

-t On 


nO CO -rf o r- 
-T r~- ro CO (N 



TtNO^t-r^mcor-- — 

CO — 



on - co no co oo oo 
r- — i — i co -h 



00 •rf CO "3- On O On ro 
— i in CO NO — i <—< NO ro 
CM — 



on co on — —i r^ r^ 
co co oo r^ on co m 



— i OO NO OO O ON o 
— CO CS O) <N (N 



oo in co co — oo r- 

04 ON NO rf r-» CM CO 



in o r-- — i co i-~ in 
— i in o m oo no "5fr 

CM 



oo in -*t r— in rr ^t 



r^ in co ^f oo co —i 
co r-- co no in ^r 



— r i ro -f in O r~ oo 



ON O 



* 

CQ 

< 

in no 



* 
CQ 



* 

CQ 



< < 

r- oo on o — i cm co 

— ' — < >— i CM CM CM CM 



* 

CQ 



t|- in no r^ oo on o 

CM CM CM OJ (N CM CO 



ON 
NO 



CO 



B 











00 






W 






u 






<— 






efl 






H 






E3 




e 


a. 




-r 


00 

o 




o 


CQ 




>r, 


r^ 






CM 

TD 
C 

< 

CM 




e 


o 
'C 

s 

"TO 

c 
ca 

CQ 




ON 


o^ 




NO 


^H 




T 


-o 

a 

< 

■ON 

J-. 

■*— i 




CM 






CM 


cc 












Q 

CQ 

r- 

i — i 

c 




NO 


r3 




© 
CO 


< 






r~- 




cT 


•j-j 
o 

on 




v© 

T 


s 




Vi 


CQ 
i^, 

— 

C 
ea 




© 

NO 


< 




r-; 


in 












1 

to 

s 

1- 






<£ 


oJ 






-O 
03 






— 




O 


C3 


r » 


- ,— ' 


> 


i 


X> 


r5 


*** 


U 


1 . 


^ 


c 


O 


H 


LB 


c 


O 


E 


nj 

^ 


H 


o 


OJ 



U £ 



2X 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR YEARS 1980 THROUGH 1985-86 



3000 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 
F 

C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



2500 



2000 



1500 



1000 



500 




1980 



1981 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



1985-86 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases Dispositions have exceeded filings for the past three years. 

and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals. 



29 



s 

w 
H 

> 
(A 

H 

o 
u 

H 

Z 

w 

w 
a 
a. 

w 

K 
H 



c 
o 



c 

51 



.2 

•5 

3 

m 

c 






O 






-C 


o 


<•> 


o u 


3 


* 


J= 


(J 


'C >- 


O 


C 





u. 


.2 U 










o 


c 
o 


■a 

0> 


TD 


Q a 




c 


__ 


X3 V 




IS) 


041 


m 


z, > 


Cl 


> 


t/] 


i— 


■? a 


3 
<•> 


-o 


a] 


o 


H U 



3 



30 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 
(As of June 30, 1986) 



District 

1 

2 
3 



9 

10 



II 
12 

13 

14 

15A 
15B 
16 



FIRST DIVISION 

J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 

William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston 

David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 

Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount 

James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

SECOND DIVISION 

Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 
Henry H. Hight, Jr., Henderson 

Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnett, Jr., Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 

Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Durham 
James M. Read, Durham 

D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

F. Gordon Battle, Hillsboro 

B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 



District 

17A 

17B 



19A 

19B 

20 

21 

22 
23 

24 

25 

26 



27A 

27B 
28 

29 

30 



THIRD DIVISION 

Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 

James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, High Point 
Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro 
Joseph John, Greensboro 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro 

F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 
William H. Helms, Wingate 

William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
C. Preston Cornelius, Mooresville 

Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 

Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 

James U. Downs, Franklin 

Joseph A. Pachnowski, Bryson City 



*In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



31 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville 
Man M. Pope, Southern Pines 
Fred J. Williams. Durham 



Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh 
Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville 
Lamar Gudger, Asheville 
I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 

Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 

Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1986) 



Bradford Tillery, Wilmington, President 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh, President- Elect 
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City, Vice President 
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary -Treasurer 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia, Julius A. Rousseau, North 
Wilkesboro, Additional Executive Committee Members 



32 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general jurisdic- 
tion trial courts for the state. In 1985-86, there were 64 
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34 
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide ballot. In 
addition, eight "special" superior court judges are appointed 
by the Governor for four year terms. 

Jurisdiction 



The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony 
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by 
grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first in 
the district court, from which conviction may be appealed to 
the superior court for trial de novo by a jury. No trial by jury is 
available for criminal cases in district court.) The superior 
court is the proper court for the trial of civil cases where the 
amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, and it has jurisdic- 
tion over appeals from administrative agencies except the 
Industrial Commission, certain rulings of the Commissioner 
of Insurance, the Board of Bar Examiners of the North 
Carolina State Bar, the Board of State Contract Appeals, and 
the Property Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies 
lie directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Regard- 
less of the amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdic- 
tion of the superior court does not include domestic relations 
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate and 
estates matters and certain special proceedings heard first by 
the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the clerk are within the 
appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into 34 
judicial districts during 1985-86. Each district has at least 
one resident superior court judge who has certain administra- 
tive responsibilities for his home district, such as providing 
for civil case calendaring procedures. (Criminal case calen- 
dars are prepared by the district attorneys.) In districts with 
more than one resident superior court judge, the judge senior 
in service on the superior court bench exercises these super- 
visory powers. 



The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for the 
rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the map on 
Page 30. Within the division, a resident superior court judge 
is required to rotate among the judicial districts, holding 
court for at least six months in each, then moving on to his 
next assignment. A special superior court judge may be 
assigned to hold court in any of the 100 counties. Assign- 
ments of all superior court judges are made by the Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution of 
North Carolina, at least two sessions (a week each) of super- 
ior court are held annually in each of the 100 counties. The 
vast majority of counties have more than the constitutional 
minimum of two weeks of superior court annually. Many 
larger counties have superior court in session about every 
week in the year. 

Expenditures 

A total of $ 1 4,263,095 was expended on the operations of 
the superior courts during the 1985-86 fiscal year. This 
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 72 superior 
court judges, and salaries and expenses for court reporters 
and secretarial staff for superior court judges. The 1985-86 
expenditures for the superior courts amounted to 10.5% of 
total General Fund expenditures for the operations of the 
entire Judicial Department during the 1985-86 
fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 91,336 
cases were filed in the superior courts during 1985-86, an 
increase of 5,767 cases (6.7%) from the total of 85,569 cases 
that were filed in 1984-85. There were increases in filings in 
all case categories: civil cases, felonies, and misdemeanor 
appeals. 

Superior court case dispositions increased from 84,334 in 
1984-85 to 88,089 in 1985-86. There were disposition 
increases in all case categories. 

More detailed information on the flow of cases through 
the superior courts is included in Part fV of this Report. 



33 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1986) 



District 

1 



Mi 



John T. Chaffin. Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Manteo 

Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Williamston 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 

J. Randal Hunter, New Bern 

Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City 

James E. Martin, Bethel 

James E. Ragan, Oriental 

H. Horton Rountree, Greenville 

Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville 
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville 
James N. Martin, Clinton 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington 
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

George Britt, Tarboro 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro 

Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 

Narley L. Cashwell, Apex 
William A. Creech, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh 
Philip O. Redwine, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 



District 

11 



12 



13 

14 

15A 
15B 

16 

17A 
17B 



19A 



I9B 



Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington 

Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 

Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 

Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville 

Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville 

William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
Lee Greer, Jr., Long Beach 
Dewey J. Hooks, Jr., Whiteville 
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City 

David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
Richard Chaney, Durham 
Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham 
Kenneth C. Titus, Durham 

J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
James K. Washburn, Burlington 

Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro 
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill 

John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
Adelaide G. Behan, Lumberton 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 
Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville 

Foy Clark, Mount Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 

Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro 
Robert E. Bencini, Jr., High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro 
Paul T. Williams, Greensboro 

Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 
James H. Dooley, Jr., Salisbury 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 

L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
William M. Neely, Asheboro 



"The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



U 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1986) 



District 

20 



21 



22 



23 



24 



25 



Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale, Southern Pines 
Ronald W. Burns, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe 
W. Reece Saunders, Jr., Rockingham 

Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
Lynn Burleson, Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem 

Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 

Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro 
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro 

Robert H. Lacey, Newland 

Charles P. Ginn, Boone 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward H. Blair, Jr., Lenoir 
Daniel R. Green, Jr., Hickory 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 



District 

26 



27A 



27B 



2X 



29 



30 



James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte 

J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
Lawrence B. Langson, Gastonia 

George W. Hamrick, Shelby 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 
John M. Gardner, Shelby 

Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher 
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

Robert T. Gash, Brevard 
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion 
Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1986) 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville, President 

Earl J. Fowler, Arden, Vice President 

Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville, Secretary -Treasurer 

J.B. Allen, Graham 
George M. Britt, Tarboro 
L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Additional Executive Committee Members 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



35 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with origi- 
nal jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the cases 
handled by the State's court system. There were 146 district 
court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during 1985-86. 
These judges are elected to four- year terms by the voters of 
their respective districts. 

A total of 63 1 magistrate positions were authorized as of 
June 30. 1986. Of this number, about 100 positions were 
specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by the 
senior resident superior court judge from nominations sub- 
mitted by the clerk of the superior court of their county, and 
they are supervised by the chief district court judge of their 
district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually all 
misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most felony 
cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary commitments 
and recommitments to mental hospitals, and domestic rela- 
tions cases. The district courts have concurrent jurisdiction 
with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the district 
courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil cases where 
the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less. Upon the 
plaintiffs request, a civil case in which the amount in con- 
troversy is $1,500 or less, may be designated a "small 
claims" case and assigned by the chief district court judge to 
a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates are empowered to try 
worthless check criminal cases when the value of the check 
does not exceed $500. In addition, they may accept written 
appearances, waivers of trial, and pleas of guilty in such 
worthless check cases when the amount of the check is $500 
or less, the offender has made restitution, and the offender has 
fewer than four previous worthless check convictions. 
Magistrates may accept waivers of appearance and pleas 
of guilty in traffic and ABC cases, and in boating, hunting 
and fishing violation cases, for which a uniform schedule 
of fines has been adopted by the Conference of Chief 
District Judges. Magistrates also conduct initial hearings 
to fix conditions of release for arrested defendants, and 
they are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial district 
by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the 
elected judges in the respective districts. Subject to the Chief 
Justice's general supervision, each chief judge exercises 
administrative supervision and authority over the operation 
of the district courts and magistrates in his district. Each chief 
judge is responsible for scheduling sessions of district court 
and assigning judges; supervising the calendaring of non- 



criminal cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making 
arrangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil cases; 
and supervising the discharge of clerical functions in the 
district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at least 
once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court. Among other matters, this annual conference adopts a 
uniform schedule of traffic, ABC, boating, hunting, and fish- 
ing offenses and fines for their violation for use by magis- 
trates and clerks of court in accepting defendents' waivers of 
appearance and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1986) 

Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford, President 
George M. Britt, Tarboro, Vice President 
Robert H. Lacey, Newland, Secretary 



Expenditures 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district courts in 
1985-86 amounted to $24,908,806. This is an increase of 
1 1.7% over 1984-85 expenditures of $22,303,686. Included 
in this total are the personnel costs of court reporters and 
secretaries as well as the personnel costs of the 146 district 
court judges and approximately 63 1 magistrates. The 1985- 
86 total is 18.3% of the General Fund expenditures for the 
operation of the entire Judicial Department, the same percen- 
tage share of total Judicial Department expenditures that the 
district courts took for the 1984-85 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

During 1985-86 the statewide total number of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) increased 127,702 (8.2%) 
over the total number reported for 1984-85. Not including 
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hear- 
ings, the filing total in 1985-86 was 1,682,321. Most of this 
increase was attributable to increases in the motor vehicle 
criminal case category, 67,174 cases (8.7%) more than the 
number of motor vehicle criminal cases in 1 984-85; the civil 
magistrate case category, 21,973 cases (10.8%) more than 
the number of civil magistrate cases in 1984-85; and the 
general civil case category, 4,899 cases ( 1 1 .4%) more than 
the number of general civil cases in 1984-85. 

More detailed information on district court civil and crim- 
inal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is contained in 
Part IV of this Report. 



36 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 
(As of June 30, 1986) 



District 

1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 

2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington 
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville 
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington 

6 DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

1 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

1 1 JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield 

1 2 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

1 3 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville 

14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 

1 5 A GEORGE E. HUNT, Graham 
1 5B CARL R. FOX, Carrboro 

1 6 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

1 7A PHILIP W. ALLEN, Wentworth 

1 7B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 

1 8 D. LAMAR DOWDA, Greensboro 

19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Kannapolis 

1 9B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

2 1 DONALD K. TISDALE, Clemmons 

22 H.W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall 

25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton 

26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B THOMAS M. SHUFORD, JR., Lincolnton 

28 ROBERT W. FISHER, Asheville 

29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



The Conference of District Attorneys 

(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1986) 

David R. Waters, President 

Edward W. Grannis, President- Elect 

Michael F. Easley, Vice President 

William H. Andrews, First Division Representative 

Ronald L. Stephens, Second Division Representative 

Phillip W. Allen, Third Division Representative 

James T. Rusher, Fourth Division Representative 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1986) 

David R. Waters, Oxford, President 

Edward W. Grannis, Fayetteville, Vice President 

Michael F. Easley, Bolivia, Vice President for 
Legislative Affairs 

Jean Elizabeth Powell, Fayetteville, Secretary- 
Treasurer 



37 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts which, 
with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial districts. By 
act of the 1981 Session of the General Assembly, the 3rd 
Judicial District is divided into two separate prosecutorial 
districts. Prosecutorial Districts 3A and 3B, effective 
October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial District 3 A consists of Pitt 
Count\ r . and Prosecutorial District 3B is comprised of 
Craven. Carteret, and Pamlico (G.S. 7 A-60). A district attor- 
ney is elected by the voters in each of the 35 districts for 
four-year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his 
district. In addition to his prosecutorial functions, the district 
attorney is responsible for calendaring criminal cases for 
trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis the 
number of assistant district attorneys authorized by statute 
for his district. As of June 30, 1986, a total of 222 assistant 
district attorneys were authorized for the 35 prosecutorial 
districts. The district attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg 
County) had the largest staff (19 assistants) and the district 
attorney of eight judicial districts (15A, 15B, 17A, 17B, 19B, 
23, 24, 27B) had the smallest staff (three assistants). 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ an adminis- 
trative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial and to 
expedite the criminal court docket. The district attorney in 1 8 
of the 35 districts is authorized to employ an investigatorial 
assistant who aids in the investigation of cases prior to trial. 
By 1986 legislation, all district attorneys (formerly only 10) 
are authorized to employ a victim and witness assistant. 

1985-86 Caseload 

A total of 76,179 criminal cases were filed in the superior 
courts during 1 985-86, consisting of 44,980 felony cases and 
31.199 misdemeanor appeals from the district courts. The 
total number of filings in the superior courts (felonies and 
misdemeanors) in the previous year was 71,915. The 
increase of 4,264 cases in 1985-86 is a 5.9% increase over 
the 1984-85 total. 

Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts in 
1985-86 amounted to 74,000. There were 43,402 felony 
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor cases disposed of 
was 30,598. Compared with 1984-85, total criminal case 
dispositions increased by 3,031 over the 70,969 cases dis- 
posed of in that fiscal year. 



The median ages of 1985-86 criminal cases at disposition 
in the superior courts were 86 days for felony cases and 67 
days for misdemeanor appeals. In 1984-85, the median age 
of felony cases at disposition was 84 days, and the median 
age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals was 67 days. 

Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for felonies 
and misdemeanors, totalled 3,306 cases, or 4.5% of total 
criminal case dispositions in the superior courts. This was a 
decrease from j ury dispositions of 3 ,5 7 7 ( 5.0% of total dispo- 
sitions) during the 1984-85 year. As is evident, a very small 
proportion of all criminal cases utilize the great proportion of 
superior court time and resources required to handle the 
criminal caseload. 

By contrast, in 1985-86 a majority (39,607 or 53.5%) of 
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were processed 
on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. This was 
close to the 5 1 .8% of guilty plea dispositions reported for 
1984-85. 

"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a significant 
percentage of all dispositions during 1985-86; a total of 
1 9,42 1 cases, or 26.2% of all dispositions. This proportion is 
comparable to that recorded for prior years. Many of the 
dismissals involved the situation of two or more cases pend- 
ing against the same defendant, resulting in a plea bargin 
agreement where the defendant pleads guilty to some 
charges in exchange for a dismissal of others. 

There was a decrease in the number of "Speedy Trial Act" 
dismissals in superior courts, from 71 in 1984-85 to 54 in 
1985-86. 

The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the 
superior courts was 2, 1 79 cases less than the total number of 
cases filed in 1985-86. Consequently, the number of pending 
criminal cases in superior court increased from 23,086 at the 
beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's end of 25,265, 
an increase of 9.4%. 

The median age of pending felony cases in the superior 
courts decreased from 88 days on June 30, 1985 to 83 days 
on June 30, 1 986. Misdemeanor appeals, on the other hand, 
recorded an increase, with the median age of pending mis- 
demeanor appeals increasing from 72 days on June 30, 1 985 
to 74 days on June 30, 1986. 

In the district courts, a total of 1,285,007 criminal cases 
were filed during 1985-86. This total consisted of 839,168 
motor vehicle criminal cases and 445,839 non-motor vehicle 
criminal cases. A comparison of total filings in 1 985-86 with 
total filings (1,184,528) in 1984-85 reveals an increase in 
district court criminal filing activity of 100,479 cases or 
8.5%. Filings in the motor vehicle case category rose by 
67,174 cases, from 771,994 cases in 1984-85 to 839,168 
cases in 1985-86, an increase of 8.7%. Filings in the non- 
motor vehicle case category rose by 33,305 cases (8.1%), 
fromatotal of412,534 cases in 1984-85 to 445,839 cases in 
1985-86. 



38 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 



Total dispositions in district courts during 1985-86 in the 
motor vehicle criminal case category amounted to 813,632 
cases. As in prior years, a substantial portion (454,693 cases 
or 55.9%) was disposed of by waiver of appearance and entry 
of plea of guilty before a clerk or magistrate. This substantial 
number of criminal cases did not, of course, require action by 
the district attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as 
having been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. The 
remaining 358,939 motor vehicle cases were disposed of by 
means other than a waiver. This balance was 28,135 cases, or 
8.5% more than the 330,804 such dispositions in 1984-85. 
(The clerks of court do not report motor vehicle criminal 
cases by case file number to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. Only summary total number of filings and disposi- 
tions are reported. Therefore, it is not possible by computer- 
processing to obtain pending case data for the motor vehicle 
criminal case category.) 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case disposi- 
tions, a total of 432,206 such cases were disposed of in 
district courts in 1985-86. As with superior court criminal 
cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by entry 



of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal by the 
district attorney. Some 152,003 cases, or 35.2% of the dispo- 
sitions were by guilty pleas. An additional 109,596 cases, or 
25.4% of the total were disposed of by prosecutor dismissal. 
The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver (12.9%), 
trial ( 1 1 .0%), as a felony probable cause matter (9.0%), or by 
other means (6.5%). 

During 1985-86, the median age at disposition of non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases was 28 days, compared with 27 
days at disposition for 1984-85. 

Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were 
13,633 cases less than the total of such filings during 1985- 
86. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases pending 
at year's end was 78,665, compared with a total of 65,032 at 
the beginning of the year, an increase of 13,633 (21.0%) in 
the number of pending cases. The median age for pending 
non-motor vehicle cases rose from 48 days on June 30, 1 985 
to 50 days on June 30, 1986. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in super- 
ior and district courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 



39 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1986) 



COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


Alamance 


Louise B. Wilson 


Johnston 


Will R. Crocker 


Alexander 


Seth Chapman 


Jones 


Ronald H. Metts 


Alleghany 


Joan B. Atwood 


Lee 


Lucille H. York 


Anson 


R. Frank Hightower 


Lenoir 


Claude C. Davis 


Ashe 


Virginia W. Johnson 


Lincoln 


Nellie L. Bess 


Avery 


Robert F. Taylor 


Macon 


Lois S. Morris 


Beaufort 


Thomas S. Payne, HI 


Madison 


James W. Cody 


Bertie 


John Tyler 


Martin 


Phyllis G. Pearson 


Bladen 


Hilda H. Coleman 


McDowell 


Ruth B. Williams 


Brunswick 


K. Gregory Bellamy 


Mecklenburg 


Robert M. Blackburn 


Buncombe 


J. Ray Elingburg 


Mitchell 


Roger W. Ellis 


Burke 


Major A. Joines 


Montgomery 


Charles M. Johnson 


Cabarrus 


Estus B. White 


Moore 


Rachel H. Comer 


Caldwell 


Jeanette Turner 


Nash 


Rachel M. Joyner 


Camden 


Catherine W. McCoy 


New Hanover 


Louise D. Rehder 


Carteret 


Mary Austin 


Northampton 


R. Jennings White, Jr. 


Caswell 


Janet H. Cobb 


Onslow 


Everitte Barbee 


Catawba 


Eunice W. Mauney 


Orange 


Jean H. Connerat 


Chatham 


Janice Oldham 


Pamlico 


Mary Jo Potter 


Cherokee 


Rose Mary Crooke 


Pasquotank 


Frances W. Thompson 


Chowan 


Marjorie H. Hollowed 


Pender 


Frances N. Futch 


Clay 


R. L. Cherry 


Perquimans 


W. J. Ward j 


Cleveland 


Ruth S. Dedmon 


Person 


W. Thomas Humphries 


Columbus 


Lacy R. Thompson 


Pitt 


Sandra Gaskins 


Craven 


Dorothy Pate 


Polk 


Judy P. Arledge 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


John H. Skeen 


Currituck 


Wiley B. Elliot 


Richmond 


Miriam F. Greene 


Dare 


Betty Mann 


Robeson 


Dixie I. Barrington 


Davidson 


Hugh Shepherd 


Rockingham 


Frankie C. Williams 


Davie 


Delores C. Jordan 


Rowan 


Francis Glover | 


Duplin 


John A. Johnson 


Rutherford 


Joan M. Jenkins 


Durham 


James Leo Carr 


Sampson 


Charlie T. McCullen 


Edgecombe 


Curtis Weaver 


Scotland 


C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 


Forsyth 


Frances P. Storey 


Stanly 


David R. Fisher 


Franklin 


Ralph S. Knott 


Stokes 


Pauline Kirkman 


( iaston 


Betty B. Jenkins 


Surry 


David J. Beal 


Gates 


Frank L. Rice 


Swain 


Sara Robinson 


Graham 


0. W. Hooper, Jr. 


Transylvania 


Marian M. McMahon 


Granville 


Mary Ruth C. Nelms 


Tyrrell 


Jessie L. Spencer 


Greene 


Joyce L. Harrell 


Union 


Nola H. McCollum 


Guilford 


James Lee Knight 


Vance 


Lucy Longmire 


Halifax 


Ellen C. Neathery 


Wake 


John M. Kennedy 


Harnett 


Georgia Lee Brown 


Warren 


Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 


Haywood 


William G. Henry 


Washington 


Timothy L. Spear 


Henderson 


Thomas H. Thompson 


Watauga 


John T. Bingham 


Hertford 


Richard T. Vann 


Wayne 


David B. Brantly 


Hoke 


Juanita Edmund 


Wilkes 


Wayne Roope 


Hyde 


Lenora R. Bright 


Wilson 


Nora H. Hargrove 


Iredell 


Carl G. Smith 


Yadkin 


Harold J. Long 


Jackson 


Frank Watson, Jr. 


Yancey 


F. Warren Hughes 



40 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year term 
by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 counties. The 
Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special proceedings 
and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addition to performing 
record- keeping and administrative functions for both the 
superior and district courts of his county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of decend- 
ents' estates. It also includes such "special proceedings" as 
adoptions, condemnations of private property under the pub- 
lic's right of eminent domain, proceedings to establish boun- 
daries, foreclosures, and certain proceedings to administer 
the estates of minors and incompetent adults. The right of 
appeal from the clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the 
superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrents, subpoenas, and other 
process necessary to execute the judgments entered in the 
superior and district courts of his county. For certain misde- 
meanor criminal offenses, the clerk is authorized to accept 
defendants' waiver of appearance and plea of guilty and to 
impose a fine in accordance with a schedule established by 
the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. 



Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1985-86 
amounted to 3 1 . 1 % of the General Fund expenditures for the 
operations of the entire Judicial Department. 

1985-86 Caseload 

During 1985-86, estate case filings totalled 41,593. This 
was an increase over the 40,733 cases filed in 1984-85. 
Estate case dispositions totalled 39,765 cases in 1985-86, or 
3.0% more than the previous year's total of 38,615. 

A total of 35,28 1 special proceedings was filed before the 
1 00 clerks of superior court in 1 9 85 - 86. This is an increase of 
1,998 cases (6.0%) from the 33,283 filings in the previous 
fiscal year. Special proceedings dispositions totalled 31,735 
cases, or 1.5% more than the previous year's total of 3 1,263. 

The clerks of superior court are also responsible for han- 
dling the records of all case filings and dispositions in the 
superior and district courts. The total number of superior 
court case filings during the 1985-86 year was 91,336 and 
the total number of district court filings, not including juve- 
nile proceedings and mental hospital commitment hearings, 
was 1,682,321. 

More detailed information on the estates and special pro- 
ceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this Report. 



Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative duties 
for both the superior and district courts of his county. Among 
these duties are the maintenance of court records and 
indexes, the control and accounting of funds, and the furnish- 
ing of information to the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain 
functions related to preparation of civil case calendars, and in 
many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district attorney in 
preparing criminal case calendars as well. Policy and over- 
sight responsibility for civil case calendaring is vested in the 
State's senior resident superior court judges and chief district 
court judges. However, day-to-day civil calendar preparation 
is the clerk's responsibility in all districts except those served 
by trial court administrators. 

Expenditures 

A total of $42,316,248 was expended in 1985-86 for the 
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In addi- 
tion to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks and their 
staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors' fees, and 
witness expenses. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1986) 

David J. Beal, Surry County 
President 

John Johnson, Duplin County 

First Vice President 

Frances W. Thompson, Pasquotank County 

Second Vice President 

James L. Carr, Durham County 
Secretary 

Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County 
Treasurer 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
Juvenile Services Division 



The Juvenile Sen ices Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and aftercare 
services to juveniles who are before the District Courts for 
delinquent matters. Le,, violations of the criminal code, 
including motor vehicle violations; and for undisciplined 
matters, such as running away from home, being truant, and 
being beyond the parents' disciplinary control. 

Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delinquent 
or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine whether 
petitions should be filed. During the 1985-86 year a total of 
25.521 complaints were brought to the attention of intake 
counselors. Of this number, 16,187 (63.4%) were approved 
for filing, and 9,334 (36.6%) were not approved for filing. 

Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children in 
their own communities. Probation is authorized by judicial 
order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles after their 
release from a training school. (Protective supervision is also 
a form of court-ordered supervision within the community; 
and this service is combined with probation and aftercare.) 

In 1985-86 a total of 16,241 juveniles were supervised in 
the probation and aftercare program. 



Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The 
expenditures for fiscal year 1985-86 totalled $9,708,673. 
This was an increase of 14.0% over the 1984-85 expendi- 
tures. The 1985-86 expenditures amounted to 7.3% of all 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire 
Judicial Department, close to the same percentage share of 
total Judicial Department expenditures for the Division as in 
the previous fiscal year. 

Administration 

The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is 
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Services Div- 
ision, with the approval of the Chief District Court Judge and 
the Administrative Officer of the Courts. Subject to the 
Administrator's general supervision, each chief court counse- 
lor exercises administrative supervision over the operation of 
the court counseling services in the respective districts. 



Juvenile Services Division Staff 
(As of June 30, 1986) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 
W. Robert Atkinson, Assistant Administrator 
Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator 
John T. Wilson, Assistant Administrator 
Rex B. Yates, Assistant Administrator 
Jennie E. Cannon, Education Coordinator 



42 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 



Juvenile Services Division 
(As of June 30, 1986) 



Judicial 

District Chief Court Counselors 

1 Robert Hendrix 

2 Joseph Paul 

3 Eve C. Rogers 

4 Ida Ray Miles 

5 William T. Childs 

6 John R. Brady 

7 Nancy C. Patteson 

8 Lynn C. Sasser 

9 Tommy Lewis 

10 Larry C. Dix 

1 1 Henry C. Cox 

12 Phil T. Utley 

13 Jimmy Godwin 

14 Fred Elkins 
15A Harry Derr 

1 5 B Harold Rogerson 



Judicial 




District 


Chief Court Counselors 


16 


Robert Hughes 


17Aand 17B 


Martha Lauten 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19Aand 19B 


James Queen 


20 


Jimmy Craig 


21 


James J. Weakland 


22 


Carl T. Duncan 


23 


Wayne C. Dixon 


24 


Lynn Hughes 


25 


Lee Cox 


26 


James Yancey 


27A 


Yvonne Hall 


27B 


Gloria Newman 


28 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION 

(Officers for 1985-86) 

Executive Committee Members 

Mark Vinson, President 

Harold Rogerson, President- Elect 

Dianne Blanton, Secretary 

Larry Dix, Treasurer 

Lee C rites, Parliamentarian 



1983-86 

Fred Elliott 
Jan Dial Smith 
Dennis Cotten 



Board Members 

1984-87 

Carl Duncan 
Eve Rogers 
Debbie Culler 



1985-88 

Jane Clare 
Nancy Patteson 
Bruce Stanback 



43 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
Public Defenders 



During 1985-86. there were seven public defender offices 
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3,* 12, 15B, 
18. 26, 27A, and 28. The public defender of each district is 
appointed by the senior resident superior court judge of that 
district from a list of not less than two and not more than three 
names nominated by written ballot of the attorneys resident 
in the district who are licensed to practice law in North 
Carolina. Their terms are four years. Each public defender is 
by statute provided a minimum of one full-time assistant 
public defender and additional full-time or part-time assist- 
ants as may be authorized by the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. 

Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found "finan- 
cially unable to secure legal representation." He is entitled to 
State-paid legal representation in: any proceeding which may 
result in (or which seeks relief from) confinement; a fine of 
S500 or more; or extradition to another State; a proceeding 
alleging mental illness or incapacity which may result in 
hospitalization, sterilization, or the loss of certain property 
rights; and juvenile proceedings which may result in con- 
finement, transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or 
termination of parental rights. 

Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indigents 
in the districts with public defenders are handled by the 
public defender's office. However, the court may in certain 
circumstances — such as existence of a potential conflict of 
interest — assign private counsel to represent an indigent 
defendant. In the other 28 districts, the assigned private 
counsel system was the only one used. 

Expenditures 

A total of $3,282,969 was expended for the operation of 
the seven public defenders' offices during 1 985-86. This was 
an increase of $359,995 (12.3%) over the 1984-85 total of 

S2.922.974. 



1985-86 Caseload 

The seven public defender offices disposed of cases involv- 
ing a total of 20,970 defendants during 1 985-86. This was an 
increase of 1,884 defendants, or 9.9%, over the 19,086 
defendants represented during 1984-85. 

Additional information concerning the operation of these 
offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 
(As of June 30, 1986) 

District 3 

Robert L. Shoffner, Jr., Greenville 

District 12 
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 15B 
John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill 

District 18 
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 
Isabel S. Day, Charlotte 

District 27A 

Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia 

District 28 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



The public defender serves only two counties of the four in District 3: Pitt 
and Carteret. 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1986) 

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., President 

Joseph Turner, Vice President 

Charles L. White, II, Secretary-Treasurer 



44 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

The Office of the Appellate Defender 

(Staff as of June 30, 1986) 

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender 

Assistant Appellate Defenders 

Louis D. Bilionis Geoffrey C. Mangum 

David W. Dorey Daniel R. Pollitt 

Robin E. Hudson Leland Q. Towns 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that 
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one-year 
federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made permanent 
The Appellate Defender Office by repealing its expiration 
provision. In accord with the assignments made by trial court 
judges, it is the responsibility of the Appellate Defender and 
his staff to provide criminal defense appellate services to 
indigent persons who are appealing their convictions to the 
N. C. Supreme Court, the N. C. Court of Appeals, or to 
Federal courts. 

The Appellate Defender is appointed by, and carries out 
his duties under the general supervision of the Chief Justice. 
The Chief Justice may, consistent with the resources availa- 
ble to the Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal 
defense services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a 
local public defender office or to private assigned counsel 
instead of to the Appellate Defender. 



1985-86 Caseload 

As of July 1, 1985, the Appellate Defender had 56 cases 
pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During the 
1 985-86 year, a total of 74 additional appeals to the Supreme 
Court were assigned to the Appellate Defender's Office, and 
during that year a total of 43 cases in the Supreme Court 
were disposed of. This left 92 cases pending as of June 30, 
1 986. During the 1 985 - 86 year, the Appellate Defender and 
his staff filed a total of 58 briefs and 96 petitions in the 
Supreme Court. 

As of July 1, 1985, the Appellate Defender had 214 cases 
pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. During the 
1985-86 year, a total of 1 14 additional appeals to the Court 
of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate Defender's Office, 
and during that year, a total of 244 cases in the Court of 
Appeals were disposed of. This left 84 cases pending as of 
June 30, 1986. During the 1985-86 year, the Appellate 
Defender and his staff filed a total of 151 briefs and 17 
petitions in the Court of Appeals. 



45 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

The North Carolina Courts Commission 

(Members as of June 30, 1986) 



Appointed by the Governor 

H. Parks Helms. Charlotte. Chairman 
Member. N.C. House of Representatives 

Garland N. Yates, Asheboro 
District Attorney 

Johnathan L. Rhyne. Jr.. Lincolnton 
Member. N.C. House of Representatives 

Rebecca B. Hundley. Thomasville 

Harold J. Long, Yadkinville 
Clerk of Court 

Dennis J. Winner, Asheville 
Member, N.C. State Senate 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Earl F. Parker, Apex 
Magistrate 

R. C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

Kennieth S. Etheridge, Jr., Raleigh 
N.C. Bar Association Representative 

A. B. Coleman, Jr., Raleigh 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 

The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continuing 
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, procedures 
and personnel of the Judicial Department and of the General 
Court of Justice and to make recommendations to the 
General Assembly for such changes therein as will facilitate 
the administration of justice". Initially, the Commission was 
comprised of 15 voting members, with five each appointed 
by the Governor, the President of the Senate (Lieutenant 
Governor^, and the Speaker of the House. The Commission 
also had three ex officio members as shown above. 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Albemarle 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
Clerk of Court 

Donald M. Dawkins, Rockingham 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Appointed by the Chief Justice of the N.C. Supreme Court 

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh 
Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court 

Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 
Judge, N.C. Court of Appeals 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
Superior Court Judge 

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Superior Court Judge 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
District Court Judge 

Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 
District Court Judge 



The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per- 
taining to the Courts Commission, to increase the number of 
voting members from 1 5 to 23, with the Governor to appoint 
seven voting members, the President of the Senate to appoint 
eight voting members, and the Speaker of the House to 
appoint eight voting members. The non-voting ex officio 
members remained the same: a representative of the North 
Carolina Bar Association, a representative of the North 
Carolina State Bar, and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. 



46 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further 
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership of 
the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commission is 
to consist of 24 voting members, six to be appointed by the 
Governor; six to be appointed by the Speaker of the House; 
six to be appointed by the President of the Senate; and six to 
be appointed by the Chief Justice of the North Carolina 
Supreme Court. The Governor continues to appoint the 
Chairman of the Commission, from among its legislative 
members. The non-voting ex officio membership of three 
persons remains the same. 

Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a 
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the 
Court of Appeals, two are to be j udges of superior court, and 
two are to be judges of district court. 

Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a district 
attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of superior 
court, and three are to be members or former members of the 
General Assembly and at least one of these shall not be an 
attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at least 
three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to be 
members or former members of the General Assembly, and 
at least one of these three is not to be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at least 
three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be members 
or former members of the General Assembly, and at least one 
is to be a magistrate. 

During the 1985-86 year the Courts Commission had a 
total of seven meetings, all of which were held in Raleigh. 

The following Commission proposals were approved by 
the 1986 Session of the General Assembly: 

• Statutory amendment eliminating numbered seats for 
election of judges of the superior court (Chapter 957, S 
893). 



• Statutory amendment providing that when two superior 
court seats with terms of different lengths in the same 
district must be filled at the same election, the full terms 
and expired terms are treated as different offices, and 
candidates may file for only one of the offices (Chapter 
986, S 892); but if Chapter 986, S 892 is not pre-cleared 
under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1 965, then in 
elections in which seats are unnumbered, candidates 
with the most votes get the longer terms (Chapter 987, 
S 922). (Note: Chapter 986 has been pre-cleared.) 

• Statutory amendment delaying until September 1,1986, 
the effective date of and making technical changes to the 
infractions legislation enacted in the 1985 session 
(Chapter 852, H 1509). 

• Statutory amendment effective October 1 , 1 986 limiting 
judges from exempting defendants on supervised probation 
from the $ 1 per month supervision fee to cases in which 
the defendant files a motion and the court finds good 
cause for the excuse (Chapter 859, H 1573). 

The Courts Commission also introduced two bills which 
never emerged from committee: ( 1 ) an act to add the Attor- 
ney General to the Courts Commission and to allow the 
Commission to use subcommittees; and (2) an act to autho- 
rize an arbitration of civil cases pilot project in the twenty- 
sixth judicial district. 

In addition, the Commission proposed legislation to pro- 
vide that an assistant district attorney may not concurrently 
hold elective office. This bill failed the second reading in the 
Senate. 

Finally, in two resolutions the Commission expressed its 
general support of uniformly applying court costs to all cases, 
and limiting such costs to the expense of performing the 
service for which they are assessed; and the Commission 
urged the General Assembly to provide a central repository 
for the filing of decisions rendered by the justice department 
under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 



47 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1985-86 

The Judicial Standards Commission 

(Members as of June 30, 1986) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold, Fuquay-Varina, 
Chairman 

Superior Court Judge James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 

Appointed by the Governor 

Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville, Secretary 
Pamela S. Gaither. Charlotte 



Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

E. K. Powe, Durham, Vice Chairman 
Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., Warsaw 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 
July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established by 
the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional amendment 
approved by the voters at the general election in November 
1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme 
Court may censure or remove any judge for willful miscon- 
duct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his 
duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involv- 
ing moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the administra- 
tion of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. In 
addition, upon recommendation of the Commission, the 
Supreme Court may remove any judge for mental or physical 
incapacity interfering with the performance of his duties, 
which is, or is likely to become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal involves 
a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommendation and 
supporting record is filed with the Court of Appeals which 
has and proceeds under the same authority for censure or 
removal of a judge. Such a proceeding would be heard by the 
Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the six judges senior 
in service, excluding the Court of Appeals judge who by law 
serves as the Chairman of the Judicial Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or removal, 
the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure known 
as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism administra- 
tively developed for dealing with inquiries where the conduct 
does not warrant censure or removal, but where some action 
is justified. Since the establishment of the Judicial Standards 
Commission in 1 973, reprimands have been issued in four- 
teen instances covering 20 inquiries. 



During the July 1, 1985 —June 30, 1986 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on November 1, 1985, 
and March 21, 1986. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, whether 
filed with the Commission or initiated by the Commission on 
its own motion, is designated as an "Inquiry Concerning a 
Judge." Fourteen such inquiries were pending as of July 1, 
1985, and 59 inquiries were filed during the fiscal year, 
giving the Commission a total workload of 73 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 55 
inquiries, and 1 8 inquiries remained pending at the end of the 
fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 55 
inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as follows: 

( 1 ) fifty-one inquiries were determined to involve eviden- 
tiary rulings, length of sentences, or other matters not 
within the Commission's jurisdiction rather than ques- 
tions of judicial misconduct; 

(2) one inquiry was determined to involve allegations of 
conduct which did not rise to such a level as would 
warrant investigation by the Commission; 

(3) two inquiries were determined to warrant no further 
action following completion of preliminary investiga- 
tions; and 

(4) one inquiry resulted in the issuance of a reprimand. 
Of the 1 8 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal year: 

(1) fifteen inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 
Commission; and 

(2) three inquiries covered in five preliminary investigative 
files were awaiting completion of the investigation or 
were subject to other action by the Commission. 



4X 



PART in 



COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of the 
Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) "other than 
compensation to process servers and other locally paid non- 
judicial officers" are required to be paid from State funds. It is 
customary legislative practice for the General Assembly to 
include appropriations for the operating expenses of all three 
branches of State government in a single budget bill, for a 
two-year period ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered 
years. The budget for the second year of the biennium is 
generally modified during the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided by 
State funds, but, by statute, the county governments are 
required to provide from county funds for adequate facilities 
for the trial courts within each of the 100 counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for operat- 
ing expenses for all departments and agencies of State 
government, including the Judicial Department, totalled 
$4,801,279,494 for the 1985-86 fiscal year. (Appropriations 
from the Highway Fund and appropriations from the General 
Fund for capital improvements and debt servicing are not 
included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the operat- 
ing expenses of the Judicial Department for 1985-86 was 
$ 1 34, 1 45 ,8 1 3 . As illustrated in the chart below, this General 
Fund appropriation for the Judicial Department comprised 
2.8% of the General Fund appropriations for the operating 
expenses of all State agencies and departments. 




TOTAL GENERAL FUND 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OPERATING EXPENSES 

$4,801,279,494 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 

APPROPRIATION 

$134,145,813 



2.8% 



51 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriation from the State's general fund for operating 
expenses of the Judicial Department over the past seven fiscal 
years are shown in the table below and in the graph at the top 
of the following page. For comparative purposes, appropria- 



tions from the general fund for operating expenses of all State 
agencies and departments (including the Judicial Depart- 
ment) for the last seven fiscal years are also shown in the table 
below and in the second graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 







Judicial E 


Apartment 


All State 


Agencies 








% Increase over 




% Increase over 


Fiscal Year 




Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


1979-1980 




71,616,057 


12.45 


2,761,002,481 


12.60 


1980-1981 




82,929,174 


15.80 


3,140,949,832 


13.76 


1981-1982 




89,631,765 


8.08 


3,339,761,674 


6.33 


1982-1983 




93,927,824 


4.79 


3,488,908,246 


4.47 


1983-1984 




106,182,188 


13.05 


3,730,497,565 


6.92 


1984-1985 




121,035,791 


13.99 


4,319,568,173 


15.79 


1985-1986 




134,145,813 


10.83 


4,801,279,494 


11.15 


AVERAGE ANNUAL 










INCREASE 1979- 


1986 




11.28% 




10.15% 



During the past decade, including the seven-year period 
covered by the above table, inflation has been a significant 
factor in the national economy. 

The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Department 
appropriations during the last seven years was for the 1980- 
81 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in large 
measure to a 1 0% pay increase for Judicial Branch personnel, 
with the same pay increase provided for personnel of all State 



government agencies. A 1 0% pay increase was also provided 
for the 1984-85 fiscal year. 

Fiscal year 1982-83 shows the smallest percentage 
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during the 
seven-year period. The decline in percentage increase that 
year was consistent with a similar decline for all State 
government agencies. 



52 



$140,000,000 

1 30,000,000 

1 20,000,000 

110,000,000 

100,000,000 

90,000,000 

80,000,000 

70,000,000 

60,000,000 

50,000,000 

40,000,000 

30,000,000 

20,000,000 

1 0,000,000 





$5,000,000,000. 
4,750,000,000 
4,500,000,000 
4,250,000,000 
4,000,000,000 
3.750,000,000 
3,500,000,000 
3,250,000,000 
3,000,000,000 
2,750,000,000 
2,500,000,000 
2,250,000,000 
2,000,000,000 
1,750,000,000 
1,500,000,000 
1,250,000,000 
1 ,000,000,000 
750,000,000 
500,000,000 
250,000,000 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1979-80 — 1985-86 



$134,145,813 

















$121,035,791 i 


$106,182,188 




$93,927,824 






$89,63 1 ,765 








$82,929,174 










$71,616,057 













































































































1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1979-80 — 1985-86 



1985-86 



$4,801,279,494 





















$4^1QS68m 1 










$3,730,497,565 




$3,488,908,246 
$3,339,761,674 








$3,140,949,832 










$2,761,002,481 























































































































































































1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



1985-86 



53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



General Fund expenditures operating expenses of the 
Judicial Department during the 1985-86 fiscal year totalled 



$136,029,696 divided among the major budget classifica- 
tions as shown below. 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

District Courts 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel $10,954,526 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles $316,658 

Guardian ad litem — volunteer and contract program $772,989 

Public defenders $3,282,969 

Special counsel at mental hospitals $21 1,684 

Support services (expert witness fees, professional examinations, transcripts) $53 1,046 

Appellate Defender Services $410,998 
District Attorney Offices 

Office- District Attorney $15,504,603 

District Attorneys' Conference $83,873 
Administrative Office of the Courts 

General Administration $3,1 15,547 

Information Services $2,942,338 

Warehouse & Printing $250,596 
Judicial Standards Commission 
Pilot Programs 

Custody Mediation Pilot $67,372 

Indigency Screening Pilot $167,480 

Dispute Settlement Center $33,000 
Special Projects 

Model Juvenile Court Project $10,656 

Prosecution Management System $23,107 

Victim Assistance, 21st District $7,705 

Victim Assistance, 28th District $16,062 

Victim Assistance, 13th District $6,309 
Reserves— Retiree Increase 

TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


2,063,229 


1.5 


2,763,224 


2.0 


14,263,095 


10.5 


24,098,806 


18.3 


42,316,248 


31.1 


9,708,673 


7.1 


16,480,870 


12.1 



15,588,476 
6,308,481 



96,903 

267,852 



63,839 



11.5 



4.6 



.1 



1,200,000 
136,029,696* 



.9 
100.0 



*General Fund expenditures exceeded General Fund appropriations by $1,883,883 which was funded from the nonrevertin^ 
cash balance of the Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee account. 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expendituresjuly 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



DISTRICT COURTS 

:.3% 



SPECIAL PROJECTS 0.1% 



RESERVES- 
RETIREES INCREASE 

0.9% 



CLERKS 
OF 
SUPERIOR 
COURT 

31.1% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

4.6% 



SUPERIOR COURTS 
10.5% 




GUARDIAN AD LITEM 0.8% 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

11.5% 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.0% 
SUPREME COURT 1.5% 

LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 11.3% 

JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.1% 
JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 7.1% 

PILOT PROGRAMS 0.2% 



As the above chart illustrates, most (91%) of Judicial 
Department expenditures goes for operation of the State's 
trial courts: operation of superior courts took 1 0.5% of total 
expenditures; operation of the district courts (including mag- 
istrates, judges and court reporters) took 18.3% of the total; 



the clerks' office, 31.1% of the total; and district attorneys 
offices, 1 1.5% of total Judicial Department expenditures. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $ 1 36,029,696 for 
1985-86 represents an 1 1.4% increase over expenditures of 
$122,061,777 in 1984-85. 



$140,000,000 

130,000,000 

120,000,000 

110,000,000 

100,000,000 

90,000,000 

80,000,000 

70,000,000 

60,000,000 

50,000,000 

40,000,000 

30,000,000 

20,000,000 

10,000,000 





General Fund Expenditures For the Judicial Department 
Fiscal Year 1979-80 — 1985-86 



$136,029,696 















$122,061,777 




$1 


03,870,5 


S3 


$94,207,215 
$88,531,892 




$81,278,550 




$71,077,561 































































1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 

55 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



1985-86 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Department Receipts 
July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1985-86 fiscal 
year totalled $78,842,797. The several sources of these 
receipts are shown in the table below. As in the previous 
years, the major source of receipts is the assessment of "court 
costs" in superior and district courts, paid by litigants in 
accordance with the schedule of costs and fees set out in G.S. 
7A-304 et seq.\ these payments constituted 66.30% of the 



total receipts during 1 985-86. Fines and forfeitures made up 
28.84% of the total. Receipts in the remaining categories — 
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals filing fees, sales of 
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Reports and payments 
on indigent representation judgments— made up less than 
five percent of the total. 







%of 


Source of Receipts 


Amount 


Total 


Supreme Court Fees 


$ 10,978 


.01 


Court of Appeals Fees 


40,842 


.05 


Superior and District 






Court Costs 


56,268,560 


66.30 


Fines and Forfeitures 


22,739,185 


28.84 


Sales of Appellate 






Division Reports 


164,788 


.21 


Payments on Indigent 






Representation Judgments 


1,764,898 


2.24 


Ten-Day License 






Revocation Fee 


994,959 


1.09 


Interest on Checking 






Accounts 


858,587 


1.09 


Total 


$78,842,797 


100.00 



This total of $78,842,797 is an increase of 12.4% over 
total 1984-85 receipts of $69,064,408. The graph below illustrates 



increases in recent years in total Judicial Department 
receipts. 



$80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




Judicial Department Receipts, 1979-80 — 1985-86 



$78,842,797 



$49,3 1 1 ,080 



$51,913,089 $53,493,060 $M,998,8 1 6 





1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



1984-85 



1985-86 



56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 
(July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986) 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties and 
forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases are dis- 
tributed to the respective counties in which the cases are tried. 
These funds must be used by the counties for the support of 
the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and criminal 
cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by statute for cases 
filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes prescribe the 
distribution of these fees and provide that certain fees shall be 
devoted to specific uses. For example, a facilities fee is 
included in court costs when costs are assessed, and this fee is 
paid over to the respective county or municipality which 
provided the facility used in the case. These fees must be 
utilized by the counties and municipalities to provide and 
maintain courtrooms and related judicial facilities. 

Officer fees (for arrest and service of process) are included, 
where applicable, in the cost of each case filed in the trial 
courts. If a municipal officer performed these services in a 
case, the fee is paid over to the respective municipality. 
Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the respective counties 
in which the cases are filed. 

A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the respective 



county or municipality whose facilities were used. Most jail 
facilities in the State are provided by the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs when 
costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required by statute, 
the Judicial Department remits these fees to the State Treas- 
urer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court costs 
collected by the Judicial Department are paid into the State's 
General Fund, as are appellate court fees and proceeds from 
the sales of appellate division reports. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned to 
represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case, the trial 
judge sets the money value for the services rendered. If the 
defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered against him 
for such amount. Collections on these judgments are paid 
into and retained by the department to defray the costs of 
legal representation of indigents. 

Proceeds from the ten-day driver license revocation fee, 
which driving-while-intoxicated offenders must pay to rec- 
over their driver licenses, are distributed to the counties. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 
Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 

Judicial Facilities Fees 

Officer Fees 

Jail Fees 

Ten- Day License Revocation Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Counties and Beneficiaries 

Interest on Checking Accounts 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 

Officer Fees 

Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

Retained by Judicial Department 

Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments 

GRAND TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


10,978 


.01 


40,842 


.05 


164,788 


.21 


3,908,404 


4.96 


35,952,822 


45.60 


40,077,834 


50.83 


22,739,185 


28.84 


6,622,958 


8.40 


3,033,368 


3.85 


655,842 


.83 


994,959 


1.26 


34,046,312 


43.18 



858,587 



1.09 



341,263 


.43 


1,748,435 


2.22 


5,468 


.01 


2,095,166 


2.66 


1,764,898 


2.24 


78,842,797 


100.00 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 




County 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


106,553.21 


56,872.29 


17,806.17 


439,479.59 


-0- 


22,493.00 


-0- 


643,204.26 


Alexander 


16.681.41 


8,571.00 


4,464.00 


87,698.25 


-0- 


392.00 


-0- 


117,806.66 


Alleghany 


9,204.50 


4,524.50 


1,112.00 


26,344.00 


-0- 


362.00 


-0- 


41,547.00 


Anson 


30,919.91 


14,955.50 


1,266.00 


86,077.40 


-0- 


832.00 


-0- 


134,050.81 


Ashe 


16,485.00 


12,503.00 


1,932.00 


66,179.03 


-0- 


512.00 


-0- 


97,611.03 


Avery 


13,286.00 


9,282.00 


1,168.00 


55,406.00 


-0- 


454.00 


-0- 


79,596.00 


Beaufort 


50,673.59 


40,846.57 


15,161.85 


198,996.92 


-0- 


10,288.00 


-0- 


315,966.93 


Bertie 


21,947.00 


18,349.00 


1,508.00 


59,421.40 


-0- 


848.00 


-0- 


102,073.40 


Bladen 


40,504.22 


33,956.50 


961.00 


132,059.75 


926.00 


1,340.00 


-0- 


209,747.47 


Brunswick 


40,091.00 


21,200.00 


2,260.40 


175,067.27 


1,935.00 


2,788.00 


-0- 


243,341.67 


Buncombe 


176,964.47 


108,581.17 


4,757.50 


688,434.61 


-0- 


44,299.00 


-0- 


1,023,036.75 


Burke 


76,349.00 


33,842.00 


8,727.69 


241,400.49 


-0- 


9,664.00 


-0- 


369,983.18 


Cabarrus 


82,876.50 


52,261.00 


24,655.87 


353,156.67 


13,002.00 


30,543.50 


-0- 


556,495.54 


Caldwell 


61,140.60 


27,045.03 


2,160.00 


196,073.70 


-0- 


7,532.00 


-0- 


293,951.33 


Camden 


8,270.00 


6,300.00 


1,495.00 


40,712.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


56,777.00 


Carteret 


66,596.00 


34,034.56 


1,608.00 


273,086.97 


-0- 


15,461.50 


-0- 


390,787.03 


Caswell 


14,627.66 


13,281.00 


1,801.33 


96,176.39 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


125,886.38 


Catawba 


60,622.40 


40,902.00 


6,830.00 


365,148.49 


60,730.50 


29,998.26 


1,175.00 


565,406.65 


Chatham 


35,114.00 


34,092.00 


4,073.50 


139,825.78 


9,940.00 


1,524.00 


175.00 


224,744.28 


Cherokee 


20,113.22 


16,669.12 


6,508.00 


115,610.50 


-0- 


1,990.00 


270.00 


161,160.84 


Chowan 


18,733.00 


12,482.00 


1,020.00 


48,157.61 


-0- 


3,576.00 


-0- 


83,968.61 


Clay 


4,732.00 


3,480.00 


1,610.00 


27,859.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


37,681.00 


Cleveland 


78,299.99 


32,767.00 


14,037.00 


225,356.56 


-0- 


8,623.00 


-0- 


359,083.55 


Columbus 


50,819.50 


44,837.20 


3,908.00 


156,979.80 


3,008.00 


3,784.00 


75.00 


263,411.50 


Craven 


102,484.75 


34,697.34 


11,595.67 


347,586.44 


-0- 


28,904.00 


-0- 


525,268.20 


Cumberland 


291,547.40 


111,544.97 


44,609.17 


812,723.71 


-0- 


60,129.00 


-0- 


1,320,554.25 


Currituck 


15,460.00 


13,154.67 


2,090.00 


74,098.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


104,802.67 


Dare 


47,088.46 


22,895.91 


5,080.00 


258,746.22 


-0- 


14,128.00 


-0- 


347,938.59 


Davidson 


78,071.72 


60,275.45 


5,831.00 


408,871.08 


11,850.00 


8,327.00 


-0- 


573,226.25 


Davie 


19,268.95 


13,598.00 


749.00 


72,152.08 


-0- 


740.00 


-0- 


106,508.03 


Duplin 


40,163.71 


21,576.70 


3,256.25 


164,073.69 


-0- 


1,328.00 


305.00 


230,703.35 


Durham 


253,567.00 


68,917.00 


2,291.00 


614,013.22 


-0- 


92,140.00 


-0- 


1,030,928.22 


Edgecombe 


39,076.31 


48,484.50 


11,814.70 


122,694.15 


32,124.00 


17,062.00 


535.00 


271,790.66 


Forsyth 


295,843.22 


17,644.00 


30,664.96 


966,565.89 


2,354.00 


136,543.00 


-0- 


1,449,615.07 


Franklin 


26,347.22 


16,211.00 


2,538.00 


98,747.01 


-0- 


316.00 


-0- 


144,159.23 


Gaston 


144,857.75 


92,110.00 


10,455.50 


436,522.41 


-0- 


18,286.00 


-0- 


702,231.66 


Gates 


10,812.00 


7,836.00 


1,192.00 


39,871.48 


-0- 


28.00 


-0- 


59,739.48 


Graham 


5,703.00 


4,866.00 


3,109.00 


24,361.00 


-0- 


56.00 


-0- 


38,095.00 


Granville 


33,041.77 


14,053.20 


4,455.00 


109,151.04 


-0- 


4,992.00 


215.00 


165,908.01 


Greene 


17,653.00 


13,530.00 


1,072.32 


60,916.89 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


93,172.21 


Guilford 


454,867.59 


65,401.00 


18,110.06 


1,191,093.16 


-0- 


194,581.76 


-0- 


1,924,053.57 


Halifax 


59,708.39 


45,577.00 


7,698.44 


257,534.89 


5,048.00 


12,447.00 


65.00 


388,078.72 


Harnett 


48,878.55 


35,867.54 


19,360.00 


223,078.28 


10,750.45 


5,206.00 


218.00 


343,358.82 


Haywood 


49,494.37 


28,075.50 


6,587.00 


244,147.14 


1,680.00 


2,033.00 


110.00 


332,127.01 


Henderson 


57,753.00 


29,773.97 


16,000.33 


302,333.84 


-0- 


4,685.00 


-0- 


410,546.14 


Hertford 


27,009.00 


17,612.25 


3,047.00 


73,465.36 


-0- 


1,524.00 


-0- 


122,657.61 


Hoke 


25,313.00 


16,450.00 


6,002.56 


124,707.13 


-0- 


1,812.00 


-0- 


174,284.69 


Hyde 


6,580.00 


5,236.00 


1,430.00 


31,840.67 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


45,086.67 


Iredell 


70,43 1 .00 


39,315.00 


874.00 


341,757.73 


15,619.00 


12,219.00 


425.00 


480,640.73 


Jackson 


18,629.00 


12,686.00 


4,245.00 


82,609.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


118,169.00 



^Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who made the arrest or served the 
process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By 
prov ision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



58 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



County 



Facility 
Fees 



Distributed to Counties 



Officer 
Fees 



Jail 
Fees 



Fines and 
Forfeitures 



Distributed to Municipalities 



Facility 
Fees 



Officer 
Fees 



Jail 
Fees 



Total 



Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

McDowell 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Perquimans 

Person 

Pitt 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

Transylvania 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



59,814.14 
11,036.00 
47,435.00 
66,093.00 
43,336.05 
22,080.00 
11,306.00 
32,209.00 
35,942.00 

578,933.91 

8,725.00 

32,097.00 

56,553.00 

65,502.06 

157,513.52 
24,768.00 

138,192.49 
45,586.17 
3,769.00 
27,950.00 
24,924.00 
11,532.00 
30,283.00 

125,726.13 
13,640.00 
74,676.00 
44,485.00 

112,971.05 
64,873.50 
97,574.28 
50,504.00 
56,149.00 
40,086.00 
40,939.11 
25,345.82 
60,608.55 
11,967.00 
21,675.00 
6,759.00 
66,281.00 
43,728.00 

476,784.47 
15,354.00 
15,309.03 
30,743.00 
90,518.50 
57,501.95 
66,136.00 
24,623.00 
11,165.00 



44,406.83 

6,822.00 
25,476.00 
27,402.33 
30,108.00 
16,230.78 

8,816.00 
23,187.00 
22,402.00 
76,278.95 

6,030.00 
26,869.39 
38,622.80 
58,450.66 
42,885.60 
21,509.35 
63,314.00 
33,208.41 

3,041.00 
12,868.00 
17,080.00 

7,659.00 
23,310.00 
41,453.30 
10,615.00 
61,540.71 
25,541.00 
81,587.43 
39,356.00 
57,229.34 
29,189.00 
40,137.71 
26,444.00 
12,436.00 
14,852.00 
47,973.78 

8,578.00 
16,682.82 

5,064.00 
48,688.00 
16,907.00 
70,311.96 
12,952.00 
17,131.74 
20,436.00 
50,903.50 
33,833.00 
42,467.14 
17,671.00 

8,385.00 



20,889.94 
300.00 

12,723.00 

7,987.73 

1,067.00 

2,234.00 

10.00 

9,311.00 

1,070.00 

108.00 

520.00 

4,042.00 

2,209.00 

8,429.25 

6,018.91 

1,920.00 

23,102.12 

. 5,169.00 

60.00 

5,007.00 

4,262.00 

870.00 

2,481.50 

15,208.02 
1,845.00 
8,765.00 
5,005.00 

10,649.08 
8,079.00 

23,066.44 
7,755.73 
6,313.00 
5,540.00 
2,493.76 
4,069.00 
2,506.00 
1,576.00 
4,222.00 
2,016.00 

10,149.77 
6,745.00 

24,690.00 
2,198.64 
4,416.00 
3,287.00 
4,997.00 
4,988.00 
5,029.00 
4,801.00 
651.00 



302,435.63 

26,626.00 

171,178.50 

262,725.15 

142,031.31 

113,676.00 

37,711.25 

107,929.60 

129,957.40 

1,335,203.62 

29,772.97 

84,491.44 

215,953.09 

423,847.53 

469,663.79 

78,043.88 

390,662.94 

239,602.86 

17,509.71 

118,133.70 

115,293.88 

30,599.00 

121,915.16 

426,756.65 

88,048.09 

268,520.57 

160,272,18 

579,078.84 

580,599.87 

347,260.85 

201,712.23 

200,240.41 

132,157.37 

162,630.83 

94,728.50 

168,535.77 

52,246.00 

61,267.00 

20,450.00 

250,147.33 

132,566.88 

1,032,757.64 

59,345.05 

35,067.44 

111,979.33 

278,899.50 

240,243.13 

149,443.99 

124,556.14 
36,339.00 



16,294.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

4,590.00 

45,983.00 

-0- 

420.00 

-0- 

28,738.80 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

-0- 

280.00 

9,257.00 
-0- 

2,185.00 
-0- 
33,203.00 
20,583.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

2,020.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

7,337.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

2,405.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 



11,053.00 

676.00 

9,567.00 

9,938.00 

3,364.00 

456.00 

268.00 

2,299.00 

2,978.00 

334,642.56 

462.00 

1,308.00 

8,514.00 

20,803.00 

43,986.00 

1,420.00 

52,744.00 

20,224.56 

-0- 

7,772.00 

1,384.00 

1,260.00 

2,683.00 

43,418.85 

548.00 

11,215.00 

3,172.00 

24,976.05 

18,644.90 

26,362.00 

9,194.00 

3,958.00 

5,576.00 

6,286.00 

528.00 

8,579.00 

264.00 

3,309.00 

-0- 

12,695.00 

5,232.00 

167,456.35 

136.00 

1,030.00 

3,414.00 

21,554.05 

1,020.00 

15,662.11 

1,184.00 

428.00 



80.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
5.00 

785.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

354.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

480.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 

135.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
15.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
21.75 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
24.00 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 



454,973.54 

45,460.00 
266,379.50 
374,146.21 
219,906.36 
154,676.78 

58,111.25 

174,935.60 

192,349.40 

2,325,167.04 

45,509.97 
148,807.83 
326,446.89 
623,800.50 
720,067.82 
128,081.23 
668,015.55 
372,883.80 

24,379.71 
171,730.70 
162,943.88 

51,920.00 
180,952.66 
661,299.95 
114,696.09 
426,902.28 
238,475.18 
842,600.45 
732,136.27 
551,492.91 
298,354.96 
306,798.12 
209,803.37 
224,785.70 
139,523.32 
290,238.10 

74,631.00 
107,155.82 

34,289.00 

387,961.10 

205,178.88 

1,779,359.17 

89,985.69 

72,954.21 
169,859.33 
449,301.55 
337,586.08 
278,738.24 
172,835.14 

56,968.00 



State Totals 6,622,958.07 3,033,367.97 655,842.16 22,739,184.69 341,262.75 1,748,435.45 5,467.75 35,146,518.84 

*Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who made the arrest or served the 
process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By 
provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons in a 
variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in the North 
Carolina General Statutes. Sections 7A-450 et seq. These 
include criminal proceedings, judicial hospitalization pro- 
ceedings, juvenile proceedings which may result in commit- 
ment to an institution or transfer to superior court for trial as 
an adult. Legal representation for indigents may be by 
assignment of private counsel, by assignment of special pub- 
lic counsel (involving mental hospital commitments), or by 
assignment of a public defender. 

Seven of North Carolina's judicial districts have an office 
of public defender: Districts 3, 12, 15B, 18, 26, 27 A, and 28. 
The other 27 districts utilize only assignments of private 
counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in the seven 
districts which have a public defender in the event of a 
conflict of interest involving the public defender's office and 
the indigent and in the event of unusual circumstances when, 
in the opinion of the court, the proper administration of 
justice requires the assignment of private counsel rather than 
the public defender in those cases. 

During 1 985-86, the Criminal Law Clinic of the School of 
Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, provided 
counsel services to indigents in 188 cases (no felonies), 
assigned by the courts in Orange County to the Clinic. These 
counsel services for indigents were provided by the Clinic at 
no cost to the Judicial Department. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1,1981. (Prior to October 
1, 1981, appellate defender services were funded by a one- 
year federal grant.) Pursuant to assignments made by trial 
court judges, it is the responsibility of the Appellate Defender 
and his staff to provide criminal defense appellate services to 
indigent persons who are appealing their convictions to either 
the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The Appellate 
Defender is under the general supervision of the Chief Jus- 
tice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the resources 
available to the Appellate Defender and to insure quality 



criminal defense services, authorize certain appeals to be 
assigned to a local public defender office or to private 
assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate Defender. The 
case and cost data reported below reflect the activity of this 
office in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special counsel at 
each of the State's four mental hospitals, to represent patients 
in commitment or recommitment hearings before a district 
court judge. Under North Carolina law, each patient commit- 
ted to a mental hospital is entitled to a judicial hearing (before 
a district court judge) within 90 days after the initial com- 
mitment, a further hearing within 1 80 days after the initial 
commitment, and thereafter a hearing once a year during the 
continuance of an involuntary commitment. 

A juvenile alleged to be within the jurisdiction of the court 
has the right to be represented by counsel in all proceedings; 
and juveniles are conclusively presumed to be indigent and 
entitled to State-appointed and State-paid counsel (G.S. 7A- 
584). When a petition alleges that a juvenile is abused or 
neglected, the judge is required to appoint a guardian ad 
litem. If the guardian ad litem is not an attorney, the judge in 
addition is to appoint an attorney to represent the juvenile's 
interests (G.S. 7A-586). And where a juvenile petition 
alleges that a juvenile is abused, neglected or dependent, the 
parent has a right to appointed counsel in cases of indigency 
(G.S. 7A-587). 

The cost of all programs of indigent representation, 
rounded to the nearest dollar, was $16,480,870 in the 1985- 
86 fiscal year, compared to $14,639,125 in the 1984-85 
fiscal year, an increase of 1 2.6%. The total amount expended 
for these activities was 12.1% of total Judicial Department 
expenditures in the 1985-86 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for represen- 
tation of indigents for the fiscal year, July 1, 1985 through 
June 30, 1986. 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 
Totals 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 

Guardian ad litem volunteer and 
contract program 

Public Defender Offices 

*District 3 
District 12 
District 15B 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27 A 
District 28 
Totals 

**Criminal Law Clinic, UNC 

Appellate Defender Office 

Special Counsel at mental hospitals 

Transcripts, records and briefs 

Professional examinations 

Expert witness fees 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 


Total 


Average 


of Cases*** 


Cost 


Per Case 


361 


1,115,987 


3.091 


42,179 


9,098,002 


216 


6,374 


740,537 


116 


48,914 


10,954,526 


217 


2,473 


316,658 


128 



772,989 



1,569 


283,066 


180 


2,914 


608,884 


209 


631 


170,111 


270 


3,069 


710,803 


232 


8,828 


836,201 


95 


2,001 


368,002 


184 


1,958 


305,902 


156 


20,970 


3,282,969 


157 




410,998 


1,995 




211,684 






435,643 






34,368 






61,035 






$16,480,870 





*The Public Defender's Office serves only Pitt and Carteret Counties in Judicial District 3. 

**During 1 985-86, the Criminal Law Clinic of the School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, provided counsel services to indigents in 1 88 
cases (no felonies), assigned by the courts in Orange County to the Clinic. These counsel services for indigents were provided by the Clinic at no cost to the 
Judicial Department. 

***The number of "cases" shown is the number of defendants in cases disposed of by public defenders during the 1985-86 year. 



61 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 
July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of the 
State's four mental hospitals, to represent patients in com- 
mitment or recommitment hearings, was $21 1,684 for the 
1985-86 fiscal year. There were a total of 10,162 hearings 
held during the year, for an average cost per hearing of 
S20.83 for the special counsel service. 



The following table represents data on the hearings held at 
each of the mental hospitals in 1985-86. There were 27 more 
hearings held in 1985-86 than in 1984-85, an increase of 
0.3% in total hearings. 



Broughton Cherry 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Total 



811 
270 
703 

1,784 



170 
32 
38 

240 



273 

6 

IS 

297 



1,303 
202 
510 

2,015 



298 

36 

113 

447 



320 


8 

328 



Dorothea 
Dix 

688 
101 

478 

1,267 



175 
19 
33 

227 



276 
11 

23 

310 



John 
Umstead 

1,256 
177 
635 

2,068 



311 

22 

103 

436 



529 

2 

60 

591 



Totals 

4,058 

750 

2,326 

7,134 



954 
109 
287 

1,350 



1,398 

19 

109 

1,526 



Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 

Discharge 

Total 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Grand Totals 



2 
7 
3 

12 



1,256 

315 
762 

2,333 



68 

25 
7 

100 



1,989 
263 
638 

2,890 



5 


1 


76 


28 


2 


62 


2 


2 


14 


35 


5 


152 


,144 


2,097 


6,486 


159 


203 


940 


536 


800 


2,736 



1,839 



3,100 



10,162 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 





Assigned 


Counsel 


Guardian Ad Litem 




Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


District 1 










Camben 


20 


3,597 


9 


859 


Chowan 


79 


11,790 








Currituck 


87 


17,758 


22 


2,859 


Dare 


102 


27,248 


10 


995 


Gates 


40 


11,200 








Pasquotank 


321 


68,125 


44 


3,411 


Perquimans 


51 


11,677 


6 


380 


District Totals 


700 


151,395 


91 


8,504 


District 2 










Beaufort 


346 


73,977 


38 


2,020 


Hyde 


46 


13,821 


7 


530 


Martin 


207 


46,487 


25 


1,620 


Tyrrell 


29 


5,189 








Washington 


116 


19,370 


13 


650 


District Totals 


744 


158,844 


83 


4,820 


District 3 










Carteret 


74 


21,345 


29 


3,390 


Craven 


757 


165,916 


15 


2,950 


Pamlico 


66 


19,841 


2 


900 


Pitt 


339 


109,818 


32 


10,219 


District Totals 


1,236 


316,920 


78 


17,459 


District 4 










Duplin 


279 


103,432 


37 


3,950 


Jones 


56 


15,787 








Onslow 


946 


213,712 


140 


13,650 


Sampson 


270 


64,550 


25 


3,674 


District Totals 


1,551 


397,481 


202 


21,274 


District 5 










New Hanover 


1,039 


368,592 


4 


560 


Pender 


95 


26,885 


1 


35 


District Totals 


1,134 


395,477 


5 


595 


District 6 










Bertie 


156 


48,821 


13 


950 


Halifax 


574 


149,268 


38 


3,875 


Hertford 


235 


54,767 


26 


2,313 


Northampton 


167 


49,798 


18 


1,575 


District Totals 


1,132 


302,654 


95 


8,713 


District 7 










Edgecombe 


666 


153,559 


25 


3,650 


Nash 


553 


141,568 


16 


2,562 


Wilson 


737 


201,838 


21 


2,510 


District Totals 


1,956 


496,965 


62 


8,722 



63 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 





Assigned Counsel 


Guardia 


n Ad Litem 




Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Distiict 8 










Greene 


84 


13,489 


2 


250 


Lenoir 


716 


120,418 


1 


475 


Wayne 


1,101 


247,702 


2 


340 


District Totals 


1,901 


381,609 


5 


1,065 


Distiict 9 










Franklin 


305 


56,233 


11 


1,975 


Granville 


412 


71,493 


8 


1,488 


Person 


344 


76,511 


25 


2,860 


Vance 


543 


125,843 


5 


1,725 


Warren 


137 


34,882 


5 


775 


District Totals 


1,741 


364,962 


54 


8,823 


District 10 










Wake 


3,327 


841,495 


22 


4,224 


District Totals 


3,327 


841,495 


22 


4,224 


District 11 










Harnett 


396 


58,000 


6 


365 


Johnston 


885 


100,110 


7 


725 


Lee 


444 


64,723 


12 


1,570 


District Totals 


1,725 


222,833 


25 


2,660 


District 12 










Cumberland 


216 


59,323 


39 


2,937 


Hoke 


12 


2,184 


3 


290 


District Totals 


228 


61,507 


42 


3,227 


District 13 










Bladen 


340 


75,725 


10 


2,945 


Brunswick 


384 


84,041 


40 


5,544 


Columbus 


630 


139,621 


56 


8,883 


District Totals 


1,354 


299,387 


106 


17,372 


District 14 










Durham 


2,639 


572,045 


37 


6,093 


District Totals 


2,639 


572,045 


37 


6,093 


District 15A 










Alamance 


961 


210,293 


5 


250 


District Totals 


961 


210,293 


5 


250 


District 15B 










Chatham 


67 


13,498 


35 


2,685 


Orange 


287 


54,158 


35 


4,000 


District Totals 


354 


67,656 


70 


6,685 


District 16 










Robeson 


1,559 


320,334 


134 


8,293 


Scotland 


662 


125,981 


57 


5,767 


District Totals 


2,221 


446,315 


191 


14,060 



64 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 





Assigned 


Counsel 


Guardian Ad Litem 


District 1 7 A 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Caswell 
Rockingham 


146 
868 


32,303 
173,090 


13 
9 


975 

735 


District Totals 


1,014 


205,393 


22 


1,710 


District 1 7B 










Stokes 
Surry 


180 
639 


30,908 
162,231 


10 
35 


1,100 
3,400 


District Totals 


819 


193,139 


45 


4,500 


District 18 










Guilford 


475 


125,024 


70 


9,361 


District Totals 


475 


125,024 


70 


9,361 


District 19 A 










Cabarrus 
Rowan 


741 
1,220 


166,852 
200,931 


47 
113 


8,125 
15,013 


District Totals 


1,961 


367,783 


160 


23,138 


District 19B 










Montgomery 
Randolph 


247 
633 


47,925 
143,691 


11 
61 


1,255 
5,140 


District Totals 


880 


191,616 


72 


6,395 


District 20 










Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


337 
596 
775 
357 
911 


84,063 
102,300 
112,951 

90,708 
155,256 


3 

38 
18 
24 
56 


1,300 

4,525 
1,775 
2,700 
6,850 


District Totals 


2,976 


545,278 


139 


17,150 


District 21 










Forsyth 


3,570 


552,322 


107 


14,561 


District Totals 


3,570 


552,322 


107 


14,561 


District 22 










Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


196 

1,003 

160 

876 


50,824 
252,464 

42,517 
201,630 


5 
77 
15 
11 


800 

11,790 

2,375 

1,675 


District Totals 


2,235 


547,435 


108 


16,640 


District 23 










Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


51 
117 
600 
208 

976 


10,666 
16,765 
85,413 
37,819 

150,663 


10 

13 

81 

8 


863 
1,700 
8,430 
1,025 


District Totals 


112 


12,018 



65 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 





Assigned 


Counsel 


Guardian Ad Litem 


District 24 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Avery 

Madison 
Mitchell 

Watauga 
Yancey 


176 
94 
78 

222 
56 


51,629 
30,224 
24,802 
62,658 
15,037 


13 
9 
9 
8 

12 


4,331 
4,060 
1,210 
2,900 

4,727 


District Totals 


626 


184,350 


51 


17,228 


District 25 










Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


575 
630 

1,222 


139,488 
131,670 
270,623 


5 
13 
16 


900 
5,509 
2,063 


District Totals 


2,427 


541,781 


34 


8,472 


District 26 










Mecklenburg 


2,303 


623,392 


87 


18,257 


District Totals 


2,303 


623,392 


87 


18,257 


District 27 A 










Gaston 


172 


83,236 


27 


3,450 


District Totals 


172 


83,236 


27 


3,450 


District 2 7B 










Cleveland 
Lincoln 


556 

255 


125,158 
84,029 


46 
6 


4,528 
625 


District Totals 


811 


209,187 


52 


5,153 


District 28 










Buncombe 


332 


84,964 


31 


2,779 


District Totals 


332 


84,964 


31 


2,779 


District 29 










Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


514 

287 

73 

418 

133 


134,399 
100,931 

16,735 
106,014 

48,106 


15 
7 
5 
3 



2,375 

2,525 

875 

1,225 




District Totals 


1,425 


405,825 


30 


7,000 


District 30 










Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


119 

29 

66 

337 

118 

247 

92 


47,027 
16,237 
13,347 
119,393 
19,440 
23,760 
16,096 


25 
15 

7 
65 

14 
12 
15 


2,862 
2,182 

583 
5,041 

826 
1,410 
1,397 


District Totals 


1,008 


255,300 


153 


14,301 


STATE TOTALS 


48,914 


10,954,526 
66 


2,473 


316,658 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 

(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1986) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary Ranges 
SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices $69,144-70,608* 

28 Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff 1 1,748-48,972 

7 Secretarial personnel 1 8,852-2 1 ,696 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges 65,472-66,936* 

39 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) 11 ,748-46,680 

1 2 Secretarial personnel 1 8,036-20,700 

SUPERIOR COURT 

72 Judges 58,140-60,048* 

80 Staff personnel 18,096-36,252 

6 1 Secretarial personnel 11 ,748-23,700 

DISTRICT COURT 

146 Judges 47,076-48,948* 

631 Magistrates 12,764-21,800 

29 Staff personnel 12,768-19,800 

13 Secretarial personnel 12,252-21,696 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

35 District Attorneys 54,084* 

272 Staff personnel 16,572-34,980 

85 Secretarial personnel 12,252-21,696 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court 31,500-46,728* 

1,573 Staff personnel 12,252-27,276 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

1 Appellate Defender 54,084 

6 Assistant Appellate Defenders 17,664-34,980 

3 Secretarial personnel 1 2,708- 1 8,096 

7 Public Defenders 54,084* 

66 Staff personnel 15,204-34,980 

20 Secretarial personnel 1 2,252-2 1 ,696 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals 20,004-30,500 

4 Secretarial personnel 11 ,748-2 1 ,696 

1 Guardian ad Litem, Program Administrator 36,252 

20 Program Coordinators 9,018-21,696 

2 Program Analyst 9,426-10,848 

8 Secretarial personnel 2,796- 1 2,708 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

272 Court counselors 17,292-39,852 

45 Secretarial personnel 12,252-18,936 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts 60,048 

1 Assistant Director 48,948 

149 Staff personnel 1 1,244-58,392 

*In addition to the salaries given here, these categories are entitled to a longevity allowance for years of service. 

67 



PART IV 



TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent data on a 
district-by-district and county-by-county basis. For ease of 
reference, this part is divided into a superior court division 
section and a district court division section. 

The data within the two sections generally parallel each 
other in terms of organization, with each section subdivided 
into civil and criminal case categories. With some exceptions, 
there are three basic data tables for each case category: a 
caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and pending) table; a 
table on the manner of dispositions; and a table on ages of 
cases disposed of during the year and ages of cases pending at 
the end of the year. Pending and age data are not provided for 
district court motor vehicle criminal cases, for civil cases 
(small claims) referred to magistrates, and for juvenile cases, 
inasmuch as these categories of cases are not reported by 
case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical picture 
of caseflow during the 1985-86 year. Items recorded in this 
table include the number of cases pending at the beginning of 
the year, the number of new cases filed, the number of cases 
disposed of during the year, and the number of cases left 
pending at the end of the year. The caseload inventory shows 
the total caseload (the number pending at the beginning of 
the year plus the number filed during the year) and the 
percentage of the caseload which was disposed of during the 
year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1986 as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1985-86. These tables also show both mean (average) 
and median ages for each set of cases — those pending at the 
end of the year and those that were disposed of during the 
year. The median age of a group of cases is, by definition, the 
age of a hypothetical case which is older than 5 0% of the total 
set of cases and younger than the other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old (or very 
young) cases are included. For example, if only a single 
two-year old case was included among ten cases aged three 
months, the median age would be 90 days and the mean 
(average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial difference 
between the median and average ages, therefore, indicates 



the presence of a number of rather long-pending, or short- 
pending, cases. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been calculated from 
filing and disposition case data submitted to the Administra- 
tive Office of the Courts ( AOC ) by the 1 00 clerks of superior 
court across the State. The present case reporting system is 
primarily a manual one: weekly reports from each clerk's 
office are mailed to Raleigh, where they are computer- coded, 
entered and processed. Pending case information is computer- 
calculated from the filing and disposition data. The accuracy 
of the pending case figures is, of course, dependent upon 
timely and accurate filing and disposition data. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their actual 
pending case files against AOC's computer- produced pend- 
ing case lists, followed by indicated corrections, is necessary 
to maintain completely accurate data in the AOC computer 
file. Yet, staff resource in the clerks' offices is not sufficient to 
make such physical inventory checks as frequently and as 
completely as would be necessary to maintain full accuracy 
in AOC's computer files. Thus, it is recognized that some of 
the figures published in the following tables have errors of 
some degree. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in a manual 
reporting system is the lack of absolute consistency in the 
published year-end and year-beginning pending figures. The 
number of cases pending at the end of a reporting year should 
ideally be identical with the number of published pending 
cases at the beginning of the next reporting year. In reality, this 
is rarely the case. Experience has shown that inevitably some 
filings and dispositions which occurred in the preceding year 
do not get reported until the subsequent year. The later- 
reported data is regarded as being more complete reporting 
and is used, thereby producing some differences between the 
prior year's end-pending figures and the current year's 
beginning-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that the 
published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully justify 
their use. In any event, the published figures are the best and 
most accurate data currently available. 



71 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The Superior Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying charts 
depicting the caseflow during the 1985-86 year of cases 
pending, filed, and disposed of in the State's superior courts; 
that is, cases before superior court judges. Data is also pres- 
ented on cases pending, filed and disposed of before the 1 00 
clerks of superior court, who have original jurisdiction over 
estate cases and special proceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three catego- 
ries of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases, felony 
cases which are within the original jurisdiction of the superior 
courts, and misdemeanor appeals from the district courts to 
superior courts, for trial de novo. 

During 1985-86, as in previous years, the greatest propor- 
tion of superior court filings were felonies (49.2%), followed 
by misdemeanor appeals (34.2%) and civil cases (16.6%). 
The general trend over the past decade has been for increases 
in the total number of case filings. During 1985-86, total case 
filings in superior courts increased by 6.7% from the proceed- 
ing fiscal year (from 85,569 total cases to 9 1 ,336). Filings of 
civil cases increased by 1 1 .0%, felony filings increased by 
9.9%, and misdemeanor appeal filings increased by 0.6%. 

As in previous years, superior court civil cases generally 
take much longer to dispose of than do criminal cases. Dur- 
ing 1985-86, the median age at disposition of civil cases was 
289 days, compared to a median age at disposition of 86 days 
for felonies and 67 days for misdemeanors. A similar pattern 
exists for the ages of pending cases. The median ages of 
superior court cases pending at the end of the fiscal year, June 
30, 1986, was 224 days for civil cases, 83 days for felonies, 
and 74 days for misdemeanors. 

These differences in the median ages of civil versus crimi- 
nal cases in superior courts can be attributed in part to the 
priority given criminal cases. In criminal cases, a defendant 
has a right to a "speedy trial" guaranteed by both the United 
States and North Carolina Constitutions and by the North 
Carolina Speedy Trial Act (G.S. 15A-701 et seq.). The 
Speedy Trial Act requires cases to go to trial within 1 20 days 
of filing unless there has been justifiable delay for one or 
more of the reasons set out in the statute. During 1 985-86, 54 
criminal cases were dismissed under the Speedy Trial Act, a 
decrease of 23.9% as compared to the 7 1 cases which were 
dismissed under the Act during 1984-85. 

There is no comparable statutory standard for speedy dis- 
position of civil cases in North Carolina, although the North 
Carolina Constitution does provide that "right and justice 



shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay" (Article 
I, Section 1 8, N.C. Constitution). 

Comparing 1985-86 median-age data with the same 
information from 1984-85, it is seen that the median ages at 
disposition have decreased for civil cases but have remained 
relatively the same for criminal cases. From 1984-85 to 
1985-86, the median ages at disposition decreased for civil 
cases, from 314 to 289 days; increased slightly for felonies, 
from 84 to 86 days; and remained the same for misdemea- 
nors, 67 days. As to the ages of cases pending on June 30, 
1986, compared to the ages of cases pending on June 30, 
1985, it is seen that the median ages of pending cases have 
decreased for civil cases and felonies, but increased slightly 
for misdemeanors. The median age of civil cases pending in 
the superior courts on June 30, 1986 was 224 days, com- 
pared to 236 days on June 30, 1985; for felonies, 83 days on 
June 30, 1986, compared to 88 days on June 30, 1985; and 
for misdemeanors, 74 days on June 30, 1986, compared to 
72 days on June 30, 1985. 

The three major case categories (civil, felonies, and mis- 
demeanors) may be broken down into more specific case 
types. 

Negligence cases comprised 44% of total civil filings in 
superior courts (6,673 of 15,157 total civil filings). Contract 
cases comprised the next largest category of civil case filings, 
23.1% (3,506 filings). 

Felony case filings were dominated by burglary, 19.0% 
(8,538 of 44,980 total filings), controlled substance viola- 
tions, 17.2% (7,750 filings), larceny, 14.2% (6,386 filings), 
and forgery and utterings, 13.3% (5,981 filings). 

Non-motor vehicle appeals comprised 54.6% of misde- 
meanor filings in superior courts (17,021 of 31,199 total 
filings). 

Tables which follow present data on the manner of disposi- 
tion of superior court cases. Jury trials continue to account for 
a low percentage of case dispositions: 6.7% of civil cases 
(938 of 14,089 civil dispositions); 4.8% of felonies (2,062 of 
43,402 felony dispositions); and 4.1% of misdemeanors 
(1.244 of 30,598 misdemeanor dispositions). Over half 
(53.2%) of all civil dispositions were by voluntary dismissal 
(7,497 of 14,089 civil dispositions). As in previous years, 
most criminal cases are disposed of by guilty plea; 64.1% of 
all felony (27,8 1 6 of 43,402), and 38.6% of all misdemeanor 
dispositions (11,791 of 30,598) were by guilty plea, with 
most of these being to the offense as charged. 



75 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
1976 — 1985-86 



r 

H 
O 

I 

s 

■\ 

I) 
s 

o 

F 

C 

\ 
S 
H 

s 



1 00 



90 



so 



70 



60 



50 



40 



M) 



20 











^^* -— • 






""""^•^ 




^* — 


s' • — 


— -• """"" 




^•- ' 




s^s* 










m^-^ 










ST 










Filings as/ 










/* 










m^ ^* / 










^ / 










m—-+ 










+ ^"* 










Dispositions 














•• • . 


....*• 




.*■ •. 


• • * 








• ...•••• 










_..' ••• 










• •••••• 










End Pending 











76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



Following a slower rate of increase in the early 1 980s, filings 
and dispositions in superior court appear to have resumed the 
earlier pattern of significant annual increases. During 



1985-86, filings increased by 6.7% and dispositions 
increased by 4.5% over the 1984-85 year. 



76 



45 



T 

H 

O 30 
U 
S 
A 

N 
[) 
S 

o 

F 

C 

A 

S 15 

E 

S 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 
July 1, 1985— June 30, 1986 



44,980 



Begin Pending 
Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



I 43,402 



15,157 




,4,089 14,915 



14,534 



31,199 



I 30,598 



16,112 



8,552 



9,153 



CIVIL 



FELONIES 



MISDEMEANORS 



Compared to last year, superior court fdings increased in all 
categories. During Fiscal year 1985-86, civil Filings increased 
1 1.0%, felonies 9.9%, and misdemeanor appeals 0.6%. Dis- 
positions also increased in each category, but by a lower 



percentage than did Filings, leaving 40, 1 80 cases pending in 
superior court on June 30, 1986, an 8.2% increase from the 
number of cases pending on June 30, 1985. 



77 



MEDIAN AGES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 
Median Ages (in days) of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 



CIML 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 




224.0 



100 200 300 400 

Median Ages (in days) of Cases Disposed of During 1985-86 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 













289.0 










86.0 














67.0 













100 



The median age is the age with respect to which 50% of all 
cases in the category are younger and 50% of all cases are 
older than the median age; it is the 50th percentile of ages of 
all cases in the category. As shown in the above graphs, the 
median ages of all civil superior court cases pending and 



200 



300 



400 



disposed during fiscal year 1985-86 are greater than the 
median ages of criminal superior court cases pending and 
disposed. This is due to civil cases taking longer than crimi- 
nal cases to process. 



7K 



T 
H 
O 
U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 

O 
F 

C 
A 
S 
E 

S 



20 



16 



14 



12 



10 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN TIJE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1976 — 1985-86 



End Pending 




Dispositions 



76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



Civil filings in the superior courts grew sharply for the 
second consecutive year. Dispositions also increased, but not 



as much, leaving an increased number of cases pending at 
year end. 



79 



FILINGS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS— BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1985— June 30, 1986 



Collection on Account 
(1,233) 



Motor Vehicle Negligence 
(4,620) 




Contract 

(3,506) 



Other Negligence 
(2,053) 



Real Property 
(1,206) 



Other 

(2,224) 



2.1% Administrative Appeal 
(315) 



Non-motor vehicle negligence case filings declined from 
2,152 in 1984-85 to 2,053 in 1985-86. All other categories 
of civil filings increased significantly. As was the case last 
year, almost half (44.0%) of the civil cases filed statewide 



during 1985-86 were negligence cases (6,673 of the 15,157 
total filings). The "other" category includes non-negligent 
torts such as conversion of property, civil fraud, and civil 
assault. 



80 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July !, 1985 -June 30, 1986 



lie-in 










Knd 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


7/1/X5 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


10 


12 


22 


1 3 


59.1% 


9 


23 


34 


57 


18 


31.6% 


39 


48 


32 


80 


47 


58.8% 


33 


103 


104 


207 


102 


49.3% 


105 


14 


8 


22 


11 


50.0% 


11 


61 


62 


123 


58 


47.2% 


65 


16 


13 


29 


12 


41.4% 


17 



275 



265 



540 



261 



48.3% 



279 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 



80 
16 

38 

8 

32 

174 



79 
13 

3 7 

5 

42 

176 



L59 

29 
75 

13 

74 

350 



71 

16 

34 

2 

31 

154 



44.7% 
55.2% 
45 . 3% 
15.4% 
41.9% 

44.0% 



13 
41 
11 
43 

196 



District 3 



Carteret 


138 


Craven 


193 


Pamlico 


16 


Pitt 


264 


District Totals 


611 


District 4 




Duplin 


99 


Jones 


17 


Onslow 


252 


Sampson 


70 


District Totals 


438 


District 5 




New. Hanover 


294 


Pender 


38 


District Totals 


332 


District 6 




Bertie 


24 


Halifax 


70 


Hertford 


41 


Northampton 


28 


District Totals 


163 


District 7 




Edgecombe 


74 


Nash 


134 


Wilson 


104 


District Totals 


312 


District 8 





Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



13 
146 

214 



17/ 

216 

12 

287 

692 



90 

19 
224 
130 

463 



383 
32 

415 



24 
58 
47 
30 

159 



124 
182 
156 

462 



3 5 
206 
233 



315 


137 


409 


221 


28 


16 


551 


282 



1,303 



189 

36 

476 

200 

901 



677 
70 

747 



48 

128 

88 

58 

322 



774 



656 



100 

8 

207 

126 

441 



281 
31 

312 



2 3 
54 

3 5 

24 

136 



198 


101 


316 


145 


260 


131 



377 



48 


15 


352 


158 


447 


226 



43.5% 
54.0% 
57.1% 
51.2% 

50.3% 



52.9% 
22.2% 
43.5% 
63.0% 

48.9% 



41.5% 
44.3% 

41.8% 



47.9% 
42.2% 
39.8% 
41.4% 

42.2% 



51.0% 
45.9% 
50.4% 

48.7% 



31.3% 
44.9% 
50 . 6% 



178 

188 

12 

269 

647 



89 

28 

269 

74 

460 



396 
39 

435 



25 
74 
53 
34 

186 



97 

171 
129 

397 



33 

194 
221 



District Totals 



373 



474 



847 



399 



47.1% 



448 



XI 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



District 9 



He); in 
IV nd ing 

7/1/S5 



Franklin 


: nS 


Granville 


62 


Person 


37 


Vance 


62 


Warren 


29 


District Totals 


248 


District 10 




Wake 


1,092 


District 11 




Harnett 


101 


Johnston 


146 


Lee 


56 


District Totals 


303 


District 12 




Cumberland 


502 


Hoke 


12 


District Totals 


514 


District 13 




Bladen 


49 


Brunswick 


92 


Columbus 


156 


District Totals 


297 


District 14 




Durham 


442 


District 15A 




Alamance 


173 


District 15B 




Chatham 


39 


Orange 


123 


District Totals 


162 


District 16 




Robeson 


176 


Scotland 


50 


District Totals 


226 


District 17A 




Caswell 


18 


Rockingham 


94 


District Totals 


112 


District 17B 















End 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


ed 


Caseload 


1) 


isposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


54 


112 




54 


48 . 2% 


58 


39 


101 




r ^ 


51.5% 


49 


44 


81 




43 


53.1% 


38 


48 


110 




63 


57.3% 


47 


33 


62 




26 


41.9% 


36 



Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 



1 J 
80 

93 



218 



1,371 



124 
225 
103 

452 



469 
14 

483 



29 

78 

114 

221 



565 



153 



61 
166 

227 



180 
50 

2 30 



19 
153 

172 



37 

103 

140 



466 



2,463 



755 



971 
26 

997 



518 



1,007 



326 



100 
289 

389 



356 
100 

456 



37 

247 

284 



50 

183 

233 



238 



1148 



225 


119 


371 


209 


159 


78 



406 



429 
10 

439 



78 


48 


170 


7b 


270 


113 



237 



447 



135 



57 

156 

213 



148 
37 

185 



24 
146 

170 



2<) 
120 

149 



51.1% 



46.6% 



52 . 9% 
56.3% 
49.1% 

53.8% 



44.2% 
38 . 5% 

44.0% 



61.5% 
44.7% 
41.9% 

45.8% 



44.4% 



41.4% 



57.0% 
54.0% 

54.8% 



41.6% 
37.0% 

40.6% 



64 . 9% 
59.1% 

59.9% 



58 . 0% 
65.6% 

63.9% 



228 



1,315 



106 

162 

81 

349 



542 
16 

558 



30 

94 
157 

281 



560 



191 



43 
133 

176 



208 
63 

271 



13 
101 

114 



21 
63 

84 



82 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



It e ^ i 11 
Pending 

7/1/S5 



Julv 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Filed 



Total 
Caseload 



Disposed 



7c Caseload 
Disposed 



End 

Pending 
6/30/86 



District 18 
Guilford 


1,279 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 


106 
113 


District Totals 


219 


District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 


19 
134 



962 



157 
166 

323 



20 
111 



2,241 



263 
279 

542 



39 
245 



1271 



132 
146 

278 



16 
135 



56.7% 



50.2% 
52.3% 

51.3% 



41.0% 
55.1% 



970 



131 
133 

264 



2 3 
110 



District Totals 



153 



131 



284 



151 



53.2% 



133 



District 20 




Anson 


56 


Moore 


160 


Richmond 


64 


Stanly 


62 


Union 


159 


District Totals 


501 


District 21 





Forsyth 
District 22 



461 



Alexander 


29 


Davidson 


163 


Davie 


28 


Iredell 


124 


District Totals 


344 


District 23 




Alleghany 


12 


Ashe 


22 


Wilkes 


121 


Yadkin 


24 


District Totals 


179 


District 24 




Avery 


32 


Madison 


74 


Mitchell 


29 


Watauga 


61 


Yancey 


10 


District Totals 


206 


District 25 




Burke 


129 


Caldwell 


124 


Catawba 


214 


District Totals 


467 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


2,003 



49 
95 
80 
63 
123 

410 



641 



34 
146 

36 
202 

418 



10 

16 
151 

43 

220 



67 
34 
3 b 
70 
22 

229 



105 


47 


255 


98 


144 


51 


125 


57 


282 


129 



911 



1,102 



762 



399 



99 
108 

65 
131 

32 

435 



382 



623 



63 


35 


309 


178 


64 


29 


326 


172 



414 



22 


15 


38 


23 


272 


124 


67 


33 



195 



51 

19 
33 

74 
16 

193 



198 


327 


162 


169 


293 


125 


278 


492 


241 


645 


1,112 


528 


049 


4,052 


1803 



44 . 8% 
38 . 4% 
35.4% 
45.6% 
45.7% 

41.9% 



56.5% 



55.6% 
57.6% 
45.3% 
52.8% 

54.3% 



68.2% 
60.5% 
45.6% 
49.3% 

48.9% 



51.5% 
17.6% 
50.8% 
56.5% 
50.0% 

44.4% 



49.5% 
42.7% 
49.0% 

47.5% 



44.5% 



58 

157 
93 

68 
153 

529 



479 



28 

131 

35 

154 

348 



7 

15 

148 

34 

204 



48 
89 
32 
57 
16 

242 



165 
168 
251 

584 



2,249 



83 



District 27A 
Gaston 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/8 5 



349 



Julv 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 



Filed 



507 



Total 
Caseload 



856 



Disposed 



501 



% Caseload 
Disposed 

58.5% 



End 
Pending 

6/30/86 



355 



District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 



131 

47 



153 
62 



284 
109 



147 
59 



51.8% 
54.1% 



137 

50 



District Totals 



178 



215 



393 



206 



52.4% 



187 



District 28 
Buncombe 



365 



468 



833 



431 



51.7% 



402 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 



159 
67 

19 

117 

61 

423 



124 
50 
19 
58 
54 

305 



283 


127 


117 


53 


38 


14 


175 


81 


115 


42 



728 



317 



44.9% 
45.3% 
36.8% 
46.3% 
36.5% 

43 . 5% 



156 
64 
24 
94 
73 

411 



District 30 








Cherokee 


35 


29 


64 


Clay 


10 


8 


18 


Graham 


24 


18 


42 


Haywood 


126 


110 


236 


Jackson 


66 


53 


119 


Macon 


88 


61 


149 


Swain 


31 


17 


48 


District Totals 


380 


296 


676 


State Totals 


13,847 


15,157 


29,004 



25 

8 

15 

94 

61 
70 

20 

293 

14,089 



39.1% 


39 


44.4% 


10 


35.7% 


27 


39 . 8% 


142 


51.3% 


58 


47.0% 


79 


41.7% 


28 


43.3% 


383 


48.6% 


14,915 



K4 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985— June 30, 1986 



Voluntary Dismissal (7.497) 




Trial by Judge (1.901) 



Trial by Jury (938) 



Other (505) 



Clerk (955) 



Final Order or 

Judgment Without 

Trial (Judge) 

(2,293) 



As in previous years, voluntary dismissals account for the 
largest number of civil case dispositions in superior courts. 
The next most prominent category, pretrial orders and 
judgments by the judge, includes summary and consent 



judgments, and orders changing venue. The "other" cate- 
gory includes miscellaneous dispositions such as discontin- 
uance for lack of service of process under Civil Rule 4(e), 
dismissal on motion of the court, and removal to federal 
court. 



85 



District 1 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 19S5 -June 30, 1986 



Trial b> 



.1 u r \ 



Camden 





Chowan 





Currituck 


1 


Dare 


5 


Gates 





Pasquotank. 


1 


Perquimans 





District Totals 


7 


X of Total 


2.7% 


District 2 





Beaufort 9 

Hyde 

Martin 3 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 12 

% of Total 7.8% 



Judt-e 

1 
3 
3 

5 
1 
5 
3 

21 

8.0% 



11 




2 

13 
8.4% 



Voluntary 

I) is 111 is. Mil 

4 

4 
17 
48 

7 
ii 

7 

120 
46 . 0% 



35 
8 
6 
2 

17 

68 

44.2% 



,lu dye's 

Final Order 

or Judgment 

without Trial 

2 

6 

9 

29 

1 
9 
1 

57 
21.8% 



13 
4 

21 


11 

49 
31.8% 



Clo*k 

5 

1 

3 

11 

2 

5 


27 
10.3% 



3 
1 
2 

1 

7 
4.5% 



Other 

1 
4 
14 
4 

5 
1 

29 
11.1% 




3 

2 




5 

.2% 



Total Disposition; 

13 
18 
47 
102 
11 
58 
12 

261 
100.0% 



71 

16 

34 

2 

31 



154 

100.0% 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 



11 
5 
2 

22 



22 

12 

1 

49 



69 

127 

7 

132 



15 

40 



64 



9 
19 


11 



11 

18 
6 
4 



137 

221 

16 

282 



District Totals 
% of Total 



40 
6.1% 



84 
12.8% 



335 
51.1% 



119 

18.1% 



39 
5.9% 



39 

5.9% 



656 
100.0% 



District 4 

Duplin 8 

Jones 

Onslow 9 

Sampson 4 

District Totals 21 

% of Total 4.8% 



8 



7 

30 

45 
10.2% 



5 3 

6 

112 

43 

214 
48.5% 



16 


53 
6 

75 
17.0% 



8 

1 
24 
41 

74 
16.8% 



7 

1 
2 

2 

12 
2.7% 



100 

8 

207 

126 

441 
100.0% 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



26 




40 

3 



158 

18 



43 
5 



14 
1 



281 
31 



District Totals 
% of Total 



26 

8.3% 



45 
14.4% 



176 

56.4% 



48 
15.4% 



15 
4.8% 



2 
0.6% 



312 
100.0% 



District 6 

Bertie 1 

Halifax 2 

Hertford 1 

Northampton 

District Totals 4 

% of Total 2.9% 



1 

14 



7 

22 
16.2% 



11 
29 
12 

1 I 

63 

46.3% 



6 

4 

12 

2 

24 
17.6% 



5.9% 



4 
4 
3 
4 

15 
11.0% 



23 
54 
35 

24 

136 
100.0% 



District 7 

Edgecombe 7 

Nash 7 

Wilson 11 

District Totals 25 

% of Total 6.6% 



10 

6 

24 

40 
10.6% 



4 4 
78 
60 

182 
48.3% 



31 
42 
23 

96 

25.5% 



8 

6 
5 

19 

5.0% 



15 

4.0% 



101 
145 
131 

377 

100.0% 



District 8 

Greene 

Lenoir 11 

Wayne 14 

District Totals 25 

% of Total 6.3% 



I 

2 
27 

30 

7.5% 



6 

9 2 

129 

227 
56.9% 



6 
36 
39 

81 
20.3% 





17 

17 

34 
8.5% 



2 



2 
0.5% 



15 
158 
226 

399 

100.0% 



86 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 











Judge's 










Trial by 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Final Order 
or Judgment 
without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 






Jury 


Judge 


Total Dispos 


District 9 
















Franklin 


1 


1 


28 


21 


1 


2 


54 


Granville 


1 


12 


30 


7 


2 





52 


Person 





12 


22 


2 


4 


3 


43 


Vance 


1 


14 


39 


4 


3 


2 


63 


Warren 


2 


2 


10 


7 


2 


3 


26 


District Totals 


5 


41 


129 


41 


12 


10 


238 


% of Total 


2.1% 


17.2% 


54.2% 


17.2% 


5.0% 


4.2% 


100 . 0% 


District 10 
















Wake 


61 


90 


598 


277 


68 


54 


1148 


% of Total 


5.3% 


7.8% 


52.1% 


24.1% 


5.9% 


4.7% 


100.0% 


District 11 
















Harnett 


19 


15 


61 


22 


2 





119 


Johnston 


10 


22 


83 


54 


37 


3 


209 


Lee 


4 


10 


50 


9 


5 





78 


District Totals 


33 


47 


194 


85 


44 


3 


406 


% of Total 


8.1% 


11.6% 


47 . 8% 


20.9% 


10.8% 


0.7% 


100.0% 


District 12 
















Cumberland 


18 


77 


247 


53 


24 


10 


429 


Hoke 


5 


2 


3 











10 


District Totals 


23 


79 


250 


53 


24 


10 


439 


% of Total 


5.2% 


18.0% 


56.9% 


12.1% 


5.5% 


2.3% 


100.0% 


District 13 
















Bladen 


7 


3 


32 


6 








48 


Brunswick 


6 


16 


45 


7 


2 





76 


Columbus 


9 


27 


66 


7 


3 


1 


113 


District Totals 


22 


46 


143 


20 


5 


1 


237 


% of Total 


9.3% 


19.4% 


60.3% 


8.4% 


2.1% 


0.4% 


100.0% 


District 14 
















Durham 


41 


32 


232 


77 


54 


U 


447 


% of Total 


9.2% 


7.2% 


51.9% 


17.2% 


12.1% 


2.5% 


100.0% 


District 15A 
















Alamance 


4 


10 


87 


23 


8 


3 


135 


% of Total 


3.0% 


7.4% 


64.4% 


17.0% 


5.9% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


District 15B 
















Chatham 


5 


7 


23 


17 


3 


2 


57 


Orange 


15 


15 


66 


39 


7 


14 


156 


District Totals 


20 


22 


89 


56 


10 


16 


213 


% of Total 


9.4% 


10.3% 


41.8% 


26 . 3% 


4.7% 


7.5% 


100.0% 


District 16 
















Robeson 


4 


62 


73 





5 


4 


148 


Scotland 


5 


6 


18 


6 


1 


1 


37 


District Totals 


9 


68 


91 


6 


b 


5 


185 


% of Total 


4.9% 


36.8% 


49.2% 


3.2% 


3.2% 


2.7% 


100.0% 


District 17A 
















Caswell 


1 





15 


7 


1 





24 


Rockingham 


7 


18 


82 


20 


14 


5 


146 


District Totals 


8 


18 


97 


27 


15 


5 


170 


% of Total 


4.7% 


10.6% 


57.1% 


15.9% 


8.8% 


2.9% 


100.0% 


District 17B 
















Stokes 





5 


14 


4 


3 


3 


29 


Surry 


6 


12 


71 


20 


11 





120 


District Totals 


6 


17 


85 


24 


14 


3 


149 


% of Total 


4.0% 


11.4% 


57.0% 


16.1% 


9.4% 


2.0% 


100.0% 



87 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OK 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 19S6 





Iri.i 


b\ 


Voluntary 

Oism is s;il 

695 
54.7% 


Judge's 

Final Order 

»r Judgment 

without Trial 

124 
9.8% 


Clerk 

50 
3.9% 


Other 

68 

5.4% 




District 18 
Guilford 
% of Total 


J urj 

72 
5.7% 


Judge 

262 
20.6% 


1 otal Disposition 

1271 
100.0% 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 


2 

14 


10 

11 


77 
84 


24 
24 


5 
2 


4 
11 


132 
146 


District Totals 
% of Total 


16 
5.8% 


31 
11.2% 


161 
57.9% 


48 
17.3% 


7 
2.5% 


15 
5.4% 


278 
100.0% 


District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 


2 

10 


1 
26 


10 
65 


1 
20 


2 
10 




4 


16 
135 


District Totals 
X of Total 


12 
7.9% 


27 
17.9% 


75 
49.7% 


21 
13.9% 


12 
7.9% 


4 
2.6% 


151 
100.0% 


District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


3 

9 
2 

7 

14 


6 
27 
12 
11 
12 


20 
39 
26 
31 
71 


14 

15 

3 

7 
16 


4 
7 
7 

13 




1 
1 

1 
3 


47 
98 
51 

57 
129 


District Totals 
X of Total 


35 
9.2% 


68 
17.8% 


187 
49.1% 


55 
14.4% 


31 
8.1% 


6 

1.3% 


382 
100.0% 


District 21 
Forsyth 

% of Total 


38 
6.1% 


44 
7.1% 


325 
52.2% 


150 
24.1% 


32 

5.1% 


34 

5.5% 


623 
100.0% 


District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 


3 

6 

9 


1 
20 

3 
45 


14 
94 
21 
92 


14 

43 

2 

4 


2 

12 
1 

21 


1 
3 
2 
1 


35 
178 

29 
172 


District Totals 
% of Total 


18 
4.3% 


69 

16.7% 


221 
53.4% 


63 
15.2% 


36 
8.7% 


7 
1.7% 


414 
100.0% 


District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 


1 
1 
6 

1 


2 

4 

8 

4 


6 
16 
69 
18 


3 



36 

8 


2 


5 
2 


1 

2 




15 

23 

124 

33 


District Totals 
% of Total 


9 
4.6% 


18 
9.2% 


109 
55.9% 


47 
24.1% 


9 
4.6% 


3 

1.5% 


195 
100.0% 


District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



■> 
1 

3 
2 


10 

1 

4 
2 
4 


21 

1 

15 

48 

4 


9 
11 
10 
15 

3 


9 



3 

1 


2 
1 

3 
3 

2 


51 
19 
33 
74 
16 


District Totals 
% of Total 


11 
5.7% 


21 
10.9% 


89 
46.1% 


48 
24.9% 


13 
6.7% 


11 
5.7% 


193 
100.0% 


District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 


16 

\<> 
1 1. 


V. 
10 
35 


95 
68 

125 


7 
21 
31 


8 
15 
31 


2 

1 
8 


162 
125 
241 


District Totals 
% of Total 


37 
7 . 0% 


79 

15.0% 


288 
54.5% 


59 
11.2% 


54 
10.2% 


11 
2.1% 


528 
100.0% 


District 26 
Mecklenburg 
% of Total 


135 
7.5% 


261 
'14.5% 


1073 
59.5% 


173 
9.6% 


140 
7.8% 


21 
1.2% 


1803 
100.0% 



HH 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF 
CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 











Judge's 










Trial 


by 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Final Order 
or Judgment 
without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 






Jury 


Judge 


Total Dispos 


District 27A 
Gaston 

% of Total 


45 
9.0% 


61 

12.2% 


293 
58 . 5% 


53 

10.6% 


21 

4.2% 


28 
5.6% 


501 
100.0% 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


11 
5 


21 



99 

33 


6 
19 


4 
1 


6 

1 


14/ 
59 


District Totals 
% of Total 


16 
7.8% 


21 
10.2% 


132 
64.1% 


25 
12.1% 


5 

2.4% 


7 
3.4% 


206 
100.0% 


District 28 
Buncombe 
% of Total 


47 
10.9% 


78 
18.1% 


197 
45.7% 


55 
12.8% 


24 
5.6% 


30 
7.0% 


431 
100.0% 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


13 
2 

1 

11 

2 


17 
7 


10 
8 


60 

19 

5 

48 
17 


31 
21 
5 
11 
11 


4 
3 



4 


2 

1 

3 
1 



127 
53 
14 
81 
42 


District Totals 
% of Total 


29 
9.1% 


42 
13.2% 


149 
47.0% 


79 
24 . 9% 


11 
3.5% 


7 
2.2% 


317 
100.0% 


District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


6 
3 
1 
3 
9 
3 
1 


3 
1 

25 
13 
5 
2 


12 
3 

6 
40 
20 
35 

7 


2 



7 

13 

11 

14 

8 


1 




13 
3 

10 



1 
1 
1 


5 
3 
2 


25 
8 

15 
94 
61 
70 
20 


District Totals 
% of Total 


26 
8.9% 


49 
16.7% 


123 
42.0% 


55 
18.8% 


27 
9.2% 


13 
4.4% 


293 
100.0% 


State Totals 
% of Total 


938 

6.7% 


1,901 

13.5% 


7,497 
53.2% 


2,293 

16.3% 


955 
6.8% 


505 
3.6% 


14,089 
100.0% 



89 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



<12 



Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



12-24 



% 



• 24 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 1 




















Camden 


5 


55.6% 


3 


33.3% 


1 


11.1% 


9 


342.0 


356.0 


Chowan 


27 


69.2% 


8 


20.5% 


4 


10.3% 


39 


338.0 


185.0 


Currituck 


20 


60 . 6% 


13 


39 . 4% 





0.0% 


33 


315.2 


311.0 


Dare 


b5 


61.9% 


26 


24.8% 


14 


13.3% 


105 


375.8 


300.0 


Gates 


4 


36 . 4% 


4 


36.4% 


3 


27.3% 


11 


481.7 


516.0 


Pasquotank 


42 


64.6% 


18 


27.7% 


5 


7.7% 


65 


302.6 


235.0 


Perquimans 


11 


64.7% 


2 


11.8% 


4 


23.5% 


17 


354.1 


235.0 



District Totals 174 



District 2 



Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



62.4% 



60 


68 . 2% 


7 


53.8% 


26 


63.4% 


4 


36.4% 


34 


79.1% 



74 



26.5% 



31 



15 


17.0% 


13 


1 


7.7% 


5 


6 


14.6% 


9 


5 


45.5% 


2 


6 


14.0% 


3 



District Totals 131 



66 . 8% 



33 



16.8% 



32 



11.1% 



14.8% 
38.5% 
22.0% 
18.2% 
7.0% 

16.3% 



279 



88 
13 

41 
11 
43 

196 



348.0 



370.4 
549.2 
459.0 
520.9 
267.0 

386.6 



283.0 



283.0 
273.0 
222.0 
561.0 
175.0 

248.5 



District 3 




















Carteret 


135 


75.8% 


40 


22.5% 


3 


1.7% 


178 


238.4 


166.0 


Craven 


141 


75.0% 


33 


17.6% 


14 


7.4% 


188 


310.0 


224.0 


Pamlico 


9 


75.0% 





0.0% 


3 


25.0% 


12 


403.8 


115.5 


Pitt 


192 


71.4% 


51 


19.0% 


26 


9.7% 


269 


298.3 


209.0 



District Totals 477 



73.7% 



124 



19.2% 



46 



7.1% 



647 



287.2 



194.0 



District 4 



Duplin 






58 


65.2% 


17 


19.1% 


14 


15.7% 


89 


365.3 


248.0 


Jones 






14 


50.0% 


4 


14.3% 


10 


35.7% 


28 


701.4 


350.0 


Onslow 






161 


59.9% 


74 


27.5% 


34 


12.6% 


269 


394.9 


278.0 


Sampson 






53 


71.6% 


16 


21.6% 


5 


6.8% 


74 


286.5 


235.5 


District 


Totals 


286 


62.2% 


111 


24.1% 


63 


13.7% 


460 


390.4 


263.5 


District 


5 























New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 



275 
23 



298 



District Totals 

District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



305 



27 

146 
151 



69.4% 
59.0% 

68.5% 



Bertie 


21 


84.0% 


Halifax 


43 


58.1% 


Hertford 


32 


60.4% 


Northampton 


20 


58 . 8% 


District Totals 


116 


62.4% 


District 7 






Edgecombe 


76 


78.4% 


Nash 


130 


76.0% 


Wilson 


99 


76.7% 



District Totals 324 



76.8% 



81.8% 
75.3% 
68.3% 

72.3% 



101 
12 

113 



50 



71 



25.5% 
30.8% 

26.0% 



4 


16.0% 


24 


32.4% 


12 


22.6% 


10 


29.4% 



26.9% 



17.9% 



20 
4 

24 




7 
9 
4 

20 



19 


19.6% 


2 


32 


18.7% 


9 


20 


15.5% 


10 



21 



6 


18.2% 





41 


21.1% 


7 


50 


22.6% 


20 



97 



21.7% 



27 



5.1% 
10.3% 

5.5% 



0.0% 

9.5% 

17.0% 

11.8% 



10.8% 



2.1% 
5.3% 
7.8% 

5.3% 



0.0% 
3.6% 
9.0% 

6.0% 



396 
39 

435 



25 
74 
53 
34 

186 



97 
171 
129 

397 



33 
194 
221 

448 



284.1 
404.2 

294.9 



202.6 
434.3 
417.9 
387.5 

389.9 



209.5 
246.3 
263.3 

242.8 



268.5 
264.4 
294.2 

279.4 



227.5 
265.0 

229.0 



115.0 
274.0 
286.0 
257.0 

250.0 



144.0 
137.0 
173.0 

150.0 



294.0 
204.0 
194.0 

201.5 



90 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



<12 



Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



% 



12-24 



"„ 



• 24 



% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 9 



Franklin 


39 


67.2% 


15 


25.9% 


4 


6.9% 


58 


279.0 


201.0 


Granville 


28 


57.1% 


16 


32 . 7% 


5 


10.2% 


49 


361.2 


320.0 


Person 


29 


76.3% 


8 


21.1% 


1 


2.6% 


38 


239.7 


159.0 


Vance 


28 


59 . 6% 


15 


31.9% 


4 


8.5% 


47 


361.5 


277.0 


Warren 


23 


63.9% 


5 


13.9% 


8 


22.2% 


36 


400.5 


250.0 


District Totals 


147 


64 . 5% 


59 


25.9% 


22 


9.6% 


228 


326.3 


253.5 


District 10 





















Wake 



945 



71.9% 



279 



21.2% 



91 



6.9% 



1315 



277.6 



203.0 



District 11 



Harnett 


82 


77.4% 


24 


22.6% 





0.0% 


106 


233.4 


222.5 


Johnston 


131 


80.9% 


28 


17.3% 


3 


1.9% 


162 


216.4 


159.0 


Lee 


64 


79.0% 


17 


21.0% 





0.0% 


81 


220.1 


200.0 


District Totals 


277 


79.4% 


69 


19.8% 


3 


0.9% 


349 


222.4 


200.0 


District 12 





















Cumberland 
Hoke 



District Totals 341 
District 13 



331 


61.1% 


134 


24.7% 


77 


10 


62 . 5% 





0.0% 


6 



61.1% 



134 



24.0% 



83 



14.2% 
37.5% 

14.9% 



Durham 



400 



71.4% 



114 



20.4% 



46 



8.2% 



542 
16 

558 



560 



373.3 
426.9 

374.8 



294.9 



276.0 
143.5 

276.0 



Bladen 


18 


60.0% 


12 


40.0% 





0.0% 


30 


298.2 


334.0 


Brunswick 


57 


60.6% 


26 


27.7% 


11 


11.7% 


94 


335.4 


261.5 


Columbus 


90 


57.3% 


50 


31.8% 


L7 


10.8% 


157 


368.3 


315.0 


District Totals 


165 


58.7% 


88 


31.3% 


28 


10.0% 


281 


349.8 


298.0 


District 14 





















220.0 



District 15A 




















Alamance 


108 


56.5% 


29 


15.2% 


54 


28.3% 


191 


509.7 


311.0 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


39 


90.7% 


4 


9.3% 





0.0% 


43 


156.4 


111.0 


Orange 


113 


85.0% 


18 


13.5% 


2 


1.5% 


133 


210.0 


158.0 


District Totals 


152 


86.4% 


22 


12.5% 


2 


1.1% 


176 


196.9 


145.0 


District 16 




















Robeson 


133 


63.9% 


56 


26.9% 


19 


9.1% 


208 


333.5 


274.0 


Scotland 


41 


65.1% 


20 


31.7% 


2 


3.2% 


63 


317.5 


250.0 



District Totals 174 
District 17A 



64.2% 



76 



28.0% 



21 



7.7% 



District Totals 



74 



88.1% 



10 



11.9% 



0.0% 



271 



84 



329.7 



176.4 



262.0 



Caswell 


9 


69.2% 


4 


30.8% 





0.0% 


13 


333.5 


287.0 


Rockingham 


90 


89.1% 


10 


9.9% 


1 


1.0% 


101 


181.5 


154.0 


District Totals 


99 


86.8% 


14 


12.3% 


1 


0.9% 


114 


198.8 


169.5 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


20 


95.2% 


1 


4.8% 





0.0% 


21 


145.2 


117.0 


Surry 


54 


85.7% 


9 


14.3% 





0.0% 


63 


186.8 


171.0 



147.0 



91 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



< I . 



12-24 



>24 



Total 
Tending 



Mean 

Age (Days) 



Median 
Age (Days) 



District 18 




















Guilford 


675 


69 . 6% 


239 


24.6% 


56 


5.8% 


970 


293.2 


232.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


107 


81.7% 


22 


16.8% 


2 


1.5% 


131 


216.1 


185.0 


Rowan 


114 


85.7% 


18 


13.5% 


1 


0.8% 


133 


213.6 


179.0 



District Totals 221 



District 19B 



83.7% 



40 



15.2% 



1.1% 



264 



214.9 



179.0 



Montgomery 


lb 


69 . 6% 


4 


17.4% 


3 


13.0% 


23 


376.4 


234.0 


Randolph 


74 


67.3% 


22 


20.0% 


14 


12.7% 


110 


345.9 


267.0 


District Totals 


90 


67.7% 


26 


19.5% 


17 


12.8% 


133 


351.2 


264.0 


District 20 





















Anson 
Moore 
Richmond 
Stanly 

Union 



District Totals 296 
District 21 



3 b 


62 


17. 


6b 


42 


.0% 


63 


67 


.7% 


42 


61 


82 


89 


58 


2% 



Forsyth 



427 



56.0% 



89.1% 



20 


34.5% 


2 


76 


48.4% 


15 


14 


15.1% 


lb 


11 


16.2% 


15 


48 


31.4% 


lb 



169 



47 



31.9% 



9.8% 



b4 



3.4% 

9.6% 

17.2% 

22.1% 

10.5% 

12.1% 



1.0% 



58 

157 

93 

68 

153 

529 



479 



311.9 
449.6 
408.5 
502.0 
359.9 

408.1 



187.6 



308.5 
480.0 
236.0 
329.0 
322.0 

325.0 



157.0 



District 22 



Alexander 




21 


75.0% 


7 


25.0% 





0.0% 


28 


230.5 


213.0 


Davidson 




9 b 


73.3% 


31 


23.7% 


4 


3.1% 


131 


263.5 


216.0 


Davie 




29 


82.9% 


6 


17.1% 





0.0% 


35 


180.6 


132.0 


Iredell 




130 


84 . 4% 


21 


13.6% 


3 


1.9% 


154 


221.0 


165.0 


District 


Totals 


276 


79.3% 


65 


18.7% 


7 


2.0% 


348 


233.7 


179.5 


District 23 























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



District Totals 165 
District 24 



7 


100.0% 


10 


66.7% 


121 


81.8% 


27 


79.4% 






0.0% 


5 


33.3% 


22 


14.9% 


6 


17.6% 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



44 
32 
28 
47 

] J 



District Totals 164 
District 25 



80 . 9% 



91.7% 
36.0% 
87.5% 
82 . 5% 
81.3% 

67.8% 



33 



2 
38 
4 
9 
3 

56 



16.2% 



4.2% 
42 . 7% 
12.5% 
15.8% 
18.8% 

23.1% 



2 

19 

1 


22 



0.0% 
0.0% 
3.4% 
2.9% 

2.9% 



4.2% 
21.3% 
0.0% 
1.8% 
0.0% 

9.1% 



7 

15 

148 

34 

204 



48 
89 
32 
57 
16 

242 



137.7 
272.5 
226.0 
225.3 

226.3 



160.8 
477.4 
195.7 
222.0 
213.0 

299.7 



109.0 
256.0 
195.0 

176.5 

195.0 



89.5 
458.0 
157.0 
160.0 

182.0 

223.0 



Burke 


134 


81.2% 


22 


13.3% 


9 


5.5% 


165 


237.7 


172.0 


Caldwell 


125 


74.4% 


32 


19.0% 


] 1 


6.5% 


168 


300.5 


242.0 


Catawba 


188 


74 . 9% 


45 


17.9% 


18 


7.2% 


251 


285.0 


181.0 


District Totals 


447 


76.5% 


99 


17.0% 


38 


6.5% 


584 


276.1 


199.5 


District 26 





















Mecklenburg 1,430 



63.6% 



703 



31.3% 



116 



5.2% 



2249 



316.0 



255.0 



92 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



Total Mean Median 



12 % 12-24 % >24 % Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 27A 




















Gaston 


312 


87.9% 


41 


11.5% 


2 


0.6% 


355 


182.7 


145.0 


District 27B 




















Cleveland 


111 


81.0% 


23 


16.8% 


3 


2.2% 


137 


220.1 


196.0 


Lincoln 


39 


78.0% 


10 


20.0% 


1 


2.0% 


50 


247.3 


208.5 



24 


61.5% 


9 


23.1% 


6 


15.4% 


39 


6 


60 . 0% 


4 


40.0% 





0.0% 


10 


14 


51.9% 


7 


25.9% 


6 


22.2% 


27 


86 


60.6% 


32 


22.5% 


24 


16.9% 


142 


34 


58 . 6% 


14 


24.1% 


10 


17.2% 


58 


38 


48.1% 


25 


31.6% 


16 


20.3% 


79 


12 


42.9% 


10 


35.7% 


6 


21.4% 


28 


14 


55.9% 


101 


26.4% 


68 


17.8% 


383 


06 


69.8% 


3,435 


23.0% 


1,074 


7.2% 


14,915 



392.5 


312.0 


319.5 


314.0 


343.5 


186.5 


401.6 


437.0 


334.8 


335.0 



District Totals 150 80.2% 33 17.6% 4 2.1% 187 227.4 196.0 

District 28 

Buncombe 318 79.1% 68 16.9% 16 4.0% 402 257.3 164.5 

District 29 

Henderson 90 57.7% 47 30.1% 19 12.2% 156 

McDowell 39 60.9% 23 35.9% 2 3.1% 64 

Polk 16 66.7% 6 25.0% 2 8.3% 24 

Rutherford 41 43.6% 45 47.9% 8 8.5% 94 

Transylvania 42 57.5% 27 37.0% 4 5.5% 73 

District Totals 228 55.5% 148 36.0% 35 8.5% 411 370.1 321.0 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals i : 

State Totals 



363.8 


230.0 


332.7 


304.0 


403.7 


305.0 


381.8 


277.0 


488.4 


310.0 


459.0 


376.0 


523.7 


509.5 


422.7 


314.0 


301.7 


224.0 



93 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 






<12 


% 


12-24 


% 


>24 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


8 


61.5% 


4 


30.8% 


1 


7.7% 


13 


263.9 


90.0 


Chowan 


13 


72.2% 


4 


22.2% 


1 


5.6% 


18 


311.1 


263.5 


Currituck 


26 


55 . 3% 


17 


36 . 2% 


4 


8.5% 


47 


332.5 


336.0 


Dare 


o9 


67.6% 


16 


15.7% 


17 


16.7% 


102 


336.9 


210.0 


Gates 


8 


72.7% 


1 


9.1% 


2 


18.2% 


11 


348.5 


225.0 


Pasquotank 


42 


72.4% 


9 


15.5% 


7 


12.1% 


58 


324.9 


233.0 


Perquimans 


3 


25.0% 


3 


25.0% 


6 


50.0% 


12 


782.9 


741.0 



District Totals 169 



64.8% 



54 



20.7% 



38 



14.6% 



261 



349.0 



237.0 



District 2 
Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 

Tyrrell 
Washington 



47 


66.2% 


19 


26.8% 


5 


7.0% 


9 


56.3% 


3 


18.8% 


4 


25.0% 


19 


55.9% 


8 


23 . 5% 


7 


20.6% 


1 


50.0% 


1 


50.0% 





0.0% 


22 


71.0% 


5 


16.1% 


4 


12.9% 



71 
Lb 
34 
2 
31 



312.1 


258.0 


413.0 


265.5 


374.1 


328.5 


345.5 


345.5 


370.2 


311.0 



District Totals 



98 



63.6% 



36 



23.4% 



20 



13.0% 



154 



348.4 



299.0 



District 3 



Carteret 






76 


55.5% 


42 


30.7% 


19 


13.9% 


137 


392.2 


279.0 


Craven 






142 


64.3% 


50 


22.6% 


29 


13.1% 


221 


349.6 


272.0 


Pamlico 






9 


56.3% 


3 


18.8% 


4 


25.0% 


16 


492.3 


349.5 


Pitt 






187 


66 . 3% 


67 


23.8% 


28 


9.9% 


282 


328.1 


250.0 


District 


Totals 


414 


63.1% 


162 


24.7% 


80 


12.2% 


656 


352.7 


265.5 


District 


4 






















Duplin 






58 


58.0% 


24 


24.0% 


18 


18.0% 


100 


431.4 


323.0 


Jones 






6 


75.0% 


2 


25.0% 





0.0% 


8 


271.0 


186.0 


Onslow 






121 


58.5% 


55 


26.6% 


31 


15.0% 


207 


400.8 


309.0 


Sampson 






94 


74.6% 


19 


15.1% 


13 


10.3% 


126 


244.8 


113.5 


District 


Totals 


279 


63 . 3% 


100 


22.7% 


62 


14.1% 


441 


360.8 


259.0 


District 


5 























New Hanover 
Pender 



175 

13 



62.3% 
41.9% 



69 

11 



24.6% 
35.5% 



37 
7 



13.2% 
22.6% 



281 
31 



357.0 
564.4 



244.0 
435.0 



District Totals 188 



60.3% 



80 



25.6% 



44 



14.1% 



312 



377.7 



256.0 



District 6 
Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 



15 


65.2% 


5 


21.7% 


3 


13.0% 


34 


63.0% 


15 


27.8% 


5 


9.3% 


27 


77.1% 


6 


17.1% 


2 


5.7% 


14 


58.3% 


5 


20.8% 


5 


20.8% 



90 



66 . 2% 



31 



22.8% 



15 



11.0% 



23 

54 
35 

24 

136 



394.6 
360.1 
269.1 
369.8 

344.2 



309.0 
249.5 
213.0 
264.5 



249.5 



District 7 




















Edgecombe 


68 


67.3% 


27 


26.7% 


6 


5.9% 


101 


272.2 


204.0 


Nash 


100 


69.0% 


35 


24.1% 


10 


6.9% 


145 


310.1 


198.0 


Wilson 


92 


70.2% 


25 


19.1% 


14 


10.7% 


131 


304.6 


231.0 


District Totals 


260 


69.0% 


87 


23.1% 


30 


8.0% 


377 


298.1 


212.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


12 


80.0% 


2 


13.3% 


1 


6.7% 


15 


225.0 


108.0 


Lenoir 


94 


59.5% 


48 


30.4% 


16 


10.1% 


158 


320.5 


254.0 


Wayne 


138 


61.1% 


57 


25.2% 


31 


13.7% 


226 


375.8 


251.5 



District Totals 244 



61.2% 



107 



26.8% 



48 



12.0% 



399 



348.2 



250.0 



94 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<12 



% 



12-24 



% 



>24 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 

Age (Days) 



Median 
Age (Days) 



District 9 




















Franklin 


26 


48.1% 


17 


31.5% 


11 


20.4% 


54 


433.7 


388.0 


Granville 


34 


65.4% 


16 


30.8% 


2 


3.8% 


52 


331.8 


321.0 


Person 


33 


76.7% 


10 


23.3% 





0.0% 


43 


224.5 


224.0 


Vance 


36 


57.1% 


16 


25.4% 


11 


17.5% 


63 


396.5 


278.0 


Warren 


17 


65.4% 


5 


19.2% 


4 


15.4% 


26 


346.3 


273.0 



District Totals 146 



61.3% 



64 



26 . 9% 



28 



11.8% 



238 



354.2 



280.5 



District 10 



Wake 


714 


62.2% 


305 


26.6% 


129 


11.2% 


1148 


345.9 


265.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


83 


69 . 7% 


33 


27.7% 


3 


2.5% 


119 


279.5 


244.0 


Johnston 


157 


75.1% 


49 


23.4% 


3 


1.4% 


209 


231.4 


188.0 


Lee 


60 


76.9% 


17 


21.8% 


1 


1.3% 


78 


246.7 


203.0 


District Totals 


300 


73.9% 


99 


24.4% 


7 


1.7% 


406 


248.4 


209.0 


District 12 




















Cumberland 


211 


49.2% 


121 


28.2% 


97 


22.6% 


429 


464.4 


377.0 


Hoke 


7 


70.0% 


2 


20.0% 


1 


10.0% 


10 


330.3 


158.5 


District Totals 


218 


49.7% 


123 


28.0% 


98 


22.3% 


439 


461.3 


370.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


16 


33.3% 


18 


37.5% 


14 


29.2% 


48 


491.9 


473.0 


Brunswick 


40 


52.6% 


26 


34 . 2% 


10 


13.2% 


76 


416.7 


353.5 


Columbus 


42 


37.2% 


38 


33.6% 


33 


29.2% 


113 


536.6 


443.0 


District Totals 


98 


41.4% 


82 


34.6% 


57 


24.1% 


237 


489.1 


443.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


299 


66.9% 


115 


25.7% 


33 


7.4% 


447 


310.5 


277.0 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


69 


51.1% 


26 


19.3% 


40 


29.6% 


135 


538.7 


351.0 


District 15B 




















Chatham 


49 


86.0% 


8 


14.0% 





0.0% 


57 


220.5 


249.0 


Orange 


98 


62.8% 


52 


33.3% 


6 


3.8% 


156 


310.4 


309.5 


District Totals 


147 


69.0% 


60 


28.2% 


6 


2.8% 


213 


286.4 


280.0 


District 16 





















Robeson 
Scotland 



84 
20 



56.8% 
54.1% 



41 
15 



27.7% 
40.5% 



23 
2 



15.5% 
5.4% 



148 
37 



386.1 
346.8 



304.5 
309.0 



District Totals 
District 17A 



104 



56.2% 



56 



30.3% 



25 



13.5% 



185 



378.2 



305.0 



Caswell 


21 


87.5% 


3 


12.5% 





0.0% 


24 


209.3 


202.5 


Rockingham 


126 


86.3% 


15 


10.3% 


5 


3.4% 


146 


227.6 


213.5 


District Totals 


147 


86.5% 


18 


10.6% 


5 


2.9% 


170 


225.0 


211.5 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


25 


86.2% 


4 


13.8% 





0.0% 


29 


223.7 


225.0 


Surry 


92 


76.7% 


28 


23.3% 





0.0% 


120 


249.6 


265.0 



District Totals 117 



78.5% 



32 



21.5% 



0.0% 



149 



244.6 



255.0 



95 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



:12 



12-24 



% 



■24 



% 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 
Age (Days) 



Median 
Age (Days) 



District 18 




















Guilford 


501 


39.4% 


361 


28.4% 


409 


32.2% 


1271 


537.9 


520.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


76 


57.6% 


45 


34.1% 


1 1 


8.3% 


132 


369.0 


316.5 


Rowan 


108 


74.0% 


34 


23.3% 


4 


2.7% 


146 


276.5 


273.0 



District Totals 184 
District 19B 



66.2% 



79 



28.4% 



15 



5.4% 



Forsyth 



424 



68.1% 



30.2% 



11 



1.8% 



278 



623 



320.4 



Montgomery 


8 


50.0% 


5 


31.3% 


3 


18.8% 


16 


518.6 


370.5 


Randolph 


69 


51.1% 


32 


23.7% 


34 


25.2% 


135 


488.4 


351.0 


District Totals 


77 


51.0% 


37 


24.5% 


37 


24.5% 


151 


491.6 


351.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


23 


48.9% 


15 


31.9% 


9 


19.1% 


47 


424.3 


369.0 


Moore 


49 


50.0% 


37 


37.8% 


12 


12.2% 


98 


432.0 


366.0 


Richmond 


28 


54 . 9% 


19 


37.3% 


4 


7.8% 


51 


352.6 


266.0 


Stanly 


33 


61.4% 


16 


28.1% 


6 


10.5% 


57 


350.3 


293.0 


Union 


69 


53.5% 


44 


34.1% 


16 


12.4% 


129 


399.9 


342.0 


District Totals 


204 


53.4% 


131 


34 . 3% 


47 


12.3% 


382 


397.4 


335.5 


District 21 





















294.0 



55.0 



District 22 

Alexander 25 

Davidson 114 

Davie 19 

Iredell 129 

District Totals 287 

District 23 



71.4% 


10 


28.6% 





0.0% 


35 


267.7 


237.0 


64.0% 


61 


34.3% 


3 


1.7% 


178 


299.1 


268.0 


65.5% 


6 


20.7% 


4 


13.8% 


29 


374.3 


307.0 


75.0% 


38 


22.1% 


5 


2.9% 


172 


259.0 


236.5 



69.3% 



115 



27.8% 



12 



2.9% 



District Totals 119 

District 25 

Burke 99 

Caldwell 85 

Catawba 173 

District Totals 357 

District 26 



61.7% 



62 



32.1% 



12 



6.2% 



Mecklenburg 



961 



67.6% 



53.3% 



132 



622 



25.0% 



34 . 5% 



39 



220 



7.4% 



12.2% 



414 



193 



528 



1803 



285.1 



339.3 



320.9 



382.5 



254.0 



Alleghany 


9 


60.0% 


6 


40.0% 





0.0% 


15 


287.6 


238.0 


Ashe 


12 


52.2% 


9 


39.1% 


2 


8.7% 


23 


414.2 


353.0 


Wilkes 


66 


53.2% 


49 


39.5% 


9 


7.3% 


124 


380.0 


347.0 


Yadkin 


2 8 


84 . 8% 


4 


12.1% 


1 


3.0% 


33 


242.2 


199.0 


District Totals 


115 


59.0% 


68 


34.9% 


12 


6.2% 


195 


353.6 


295.0 


District 24 




















Avery 


37 


72.5% 


13 


25.5% 


1 


2.0% 


51 


245.7 


243.0 


Madison 


8 


42.1% 


7 


36 . 8% 


4 


21.1% 


19 


494.3 


387.0 


Mitchell 


14 


42.4% 


15 


45.5% 


4 


12.1% 


33 


500.1 


395.0 


Watauga 


4 8 


64.9% 


24 


32.4% 


2 


2.7% 


74 


301.9 


293.0 


Yancey 


12 


75.0% 


3 


18.8% 


1 


6.3% 


16 


294.7 


198.5 



293.0 



61.1% 


39 


24.1% 


24 


14.8% 


162 


377.6 


286.5 


68.0% 


33 


26.4% 


7 


5.6% 


125 


306.7 


285.0 


71.8% 


60 


24.9% 


8 


3.3% 


241 


290.1 


275.0 



281.0 



302.0 



% 



AGES OF CIVIL CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages or Disposed Cases (Months) 



:12 



% 



12-24 



.24 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 

Age (Days) 



Median 

Age (Days) 



District 27A 
Gaston 



383 



76.4% 



105 



21.0% 13 



2.6% 



501 



264.7 



250.0 



District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 



81 
36 



District Totals 117 



55.1% 54 
61.0% 19 



56.8% 



73 



36.7% 12 

32.2% 4 

35.4% 16 



8.2% 
6.8% 

7.8% 



147 

59 

206 



344.3 
331.6 

340.6 



331.0 
309.0 

328.5 



District 28 




















Buncombe 


325 


75.4% 


84 


19.5% 


22 


5.1% 


431 


289.4 


236.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


47 


37.0% 


34 


26.8% 


46 


36.2% 


127 


592.6 


653.0 


McDowell 


28 


52.8% 


17 


32.1% 


8 


15.1% 


53 


477.7 


347.0 


Polk 


9 


64.3% 


4 


28.6% 


1 


7.1% 


14 


353.5 


312.0 


Rutherford 


28 


34.6% 


38 


46.9% 


15 


18.5% 


81 


487.8 


548.0 


Transylvania 


21 


50.0% 


11 


26.2% 


10 


23.8% 


42 


469.6 


379.0 



District Totals 133 



42.0% 



104 



32.8% 



80 



25.2% 



317 



519.8 



470.0 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



District Totals 123 
State Totals 8,411 



7 


28 . 0% 


11 


44.0% 


7 


28.0% 


25 


3 


50.0% 


1 


16.7% 


4 


66.7% 


6 


9 


60.0% 


5 


33 . 3% 


1 


6.7% 


15 


39 


41.5% 


31 


33.0% 


24 


25.5% 


94 


29 


47.5% 


18 


29.5% 


14 


23.0% 


61 


29 


41.4% 


29 


41.4% 


12 


17.1% 


70 


7 


35.0% 


4 


20.0% 


9 


45.0% 


20 


23 


42.0% 


99 


33.8% 


71 


24 . 2% 


293 


11 


59.7% 


3,897 


27.7% 


1,781 


12.6% 


14,089 



523.6 


587.0 


542.0 


570.5 


325.4 


309.0 


483.5 


472.0 


533.4 


377.0 


479.9 


446.0 


667.4 


643.0 


502.5 


457.0 


369.2 


289.0 



97 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1976-1985-86 



ESTATE CASES 



i 

H 


i 
s 
\ 

N 

n 
s 



o 

F 



C 

A 
S 
E 

S 



60 



4(1 



20 




76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 



! I i i I 
1-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



i 

H 


I 

s 

A 
N 
D 

S 







( 
A 
S 
f 
S 



40 



30 



20 



10 




— i — — i 1 1 1 1 1 ' I r 

76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



Following the general trend of the last decade, filings of increased by 3.0%; special proceeding filings increased by 
estate and special proceedings increased. During 1985-86, 6.0% while dispositions of these cases increased by 1.5%. 

estate filings increased by 2.1% and estate dispositions 



9X 






FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR 
AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE 
OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 

Estates 



ESTATES 
THE CLERKS 



Special Proceedings 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 

Halifax 

Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 



Filed 

57 
168 

99 
161 

56 
260 

93 

894 



429 
75 

223 
33 

118 

878 



450 

440 

74 

572 



Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



1,536 



387 

77 

387 

393 

1,244 



726 
154 

880 



151 
455 
200 
197 

1,003 



407 
435 
495 

1,337 



134 
524 
677 

1,335 



Disposed 

59 

154 
103 
136 

58 
223 

83 

816 



335 
57 

205 
16 
99 

712 



430 

374 

62 

527 

1,393 



413 

49 

313 

412 

1,187 



612 
148 

760 



94 
418 
174 
171 

857 



370 
502 
541 

1,413 



119 
449 
845 

1,413 



Filed 

21 
56 
75 

114 
31 

123 
31 

451 



153 
32 

151 
10 
61 

407 



225 

404 

13 

510 

1,152 



242 

38 

876 

323 

1,479 



989 
138 

1,127 



78 

242 
127 

90 

537 



287 
363 
323 

973 



41 
387 

604 

1,032 



Disposed 

19 
45 
51 

111 
25 

103 
24 

378 



96 

34 

140 

7 

67 

344 



169 

321 

6 

362 

858 



173 

30 

637 

306 

1,146 



970 
128 

1,098 



64 
175 
140 
107 

486 



180 
347 
255 

782 



53 

416 
594 

1,063 



99 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 
Wake 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Estates 



Filed 

213 

252 
263 
281 
194 

1,203 
1,696 



Disposed 

184 
231 
244 
220 

162 

1,041 



1,555 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 


Disposed 


192 


121 


329 


310 


148 


124 


194 


189 


112 


114 



975 



1,995 



858 



1,708 



District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



424 
520 
302 

1,246 



964 
67 

1,031 



765 



272 
462 

7 34 



610 
241 

851 



128 
678 

806 



213 
401 

614 



389 
525 
429 

1,343 



926 
86 

1,012 



252 


249 


630 


656 


176 


175 



242 


226 


342 


444 


354 


395 


938 


1,065 


120 


1,048 



789 



272 
383 

655 



552 
178 

730 



100 
600 



700 



194 

441 

635 



1,058 



1,835 
85 

1,920 



710 



1,310 



625 



128 
394 



522 



591 
202 

793 



143 
329 

472 



9 7 
294 

391 



1,080 



1,951 
136 

2,087 



212 


175 


247 


254 


251 


559 



988 



1,274 



685 



98 
251 

349 



572 
158 

730 



65 
249 

314 



97 
326 

423 



100 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 



District 18 



Guilford 




District 


19A 


Cabarrus 




Rowan 




District Totals 


District 


20 


Montgomery 


Randolph 




District Totals 


District 


21 


Anson 




Moore 




Richmond 




Stanly 




Union 




District Totals 


District 


22 


Forsyth 




District 


22 


Alexander 


Davidson 




Davie 




Iredell 




District Totals 


District 


23 


Alleghany 


Ashe 




Wilkes 




Yadkin 




District Totals 


District 


24 


Avery 




Madison 




Mitchell 




Watauga 




Yancey 




District Totals 


District 


25 


Burke 




Caldwell 




Catawba 




District Totals 


District 


26 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Estates 



Filed 


D 


isposed 


,265 




2,126 


612 




656 


874 




827 



1,486 



185 
601 

786 



117 
484 
314 
381 
430 

1,726 



1,633 



169 
764 
192 
730 

1,855 



87 
205 
253 
273 

818 



107 
82 
97 

159 

94 

539 



1,483 



163 
568 

731 



117 
507 
226 
390 
397 

1,637 



1,596 



137 
744 
153 
631 

1,665 



84 
220 
250 
221 

775 



119 
82 
92 

190 
58 

541 



Mecklenburg 



496 


462 


456 


447 


685 


669 


1,637 


1,578 


2,645 


2,598 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 


Disposed 


2,186 


2,047 


302 


226 


942 


825 



1,244 



154 
372 

526 



1,129 



1,467 



960 



630 



398 



1,051 



86 
374 

460 



87 


59 


310 


320 


267 


173 


177 


131 


288 


219 



902 



1,412 



121 


116 


382 


313 


111 


63 


346 


325 



817 



56 


59 


119 


113 


363 


323 


92 


82 



577 



91 


59 


33 


42 


39 


37 


187 


152 


48 


22 



312 



414 


402 


330 


243 


381 


422 


1,125 


1,067 


3,453 


2,513 



101 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS FOR ESTATES 

AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS 

OF SUPERIOR COURT 



District 27A 
Gaston 



District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 



District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Estates 



Filed 


Disposed 


1,061 


1,107 


609 


608 


322 


274 



931 



1,404 



882 



1,462 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 


Disposed 


706 


715 


573 


514 


162 


172 



735 



1,115 



686 



1,003 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 

State Totals 



669 


524 


216 


185 


164 


175 


454 


397 


190 


203 



1,693 



1,484 



174 




133 


41 




33 


44 




20 


357 




321 


143 




141 


181 




259 


63 




69 


1,003 




976 


41,593 


39 


,765 



311 


323 


211 


147 


81 


76 


190 


152 


122 


72 



915 



770 



93 


97 


20 


24 


37 


20 


199 


216 


131 


139 


239 


215 


44 


41 


763 


752 


35,281 


31,735 



102 



T 
H 
O 
U 

S 
A 
N 
D 
S 



o 

F 

C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1976-1985-86 



90 



XO 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



10 




Filings 



Dispositions 



End Pending 



76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



The number of criminal cases filed in superior court con- by only 0.6%. Superior court felony filings have doubled 

tinued to grow, largely due to a 9.9% increase in felony since 1973. 

filings compared to last year. Misdemeanor filings increased 



103 



FILINGS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS-BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



A total of 76.179 criminal cases were reported filed in the Superior Courts, of which 44,980 were felonies, and 31,199 
misdemeanors. These are broken down into the following specific types of cases: 

FELONIES 

Murder 
Manslaughter 
First Degree Rape 
Other Sex Offense 
Robber, 
Assault 
Burglary 
Larceny 

Arson & Burnings 
Forgery & Utterings 
Fraudulent Activity 
Controlled Substances 
* Other 

TOTAL 



Number Filed 


% of Total Filings 


465 


1.0 


219 


0.5 


1,148 


2.6 


248 


0.5 


1,559 


3.5 


1,866 


4.1 


8,538 


19.0 


6,386 


14.2 


363 


0.8 


5,981 


13.3 


4,174 


9.3 


7,750 


17.2 


6,283 


14.0 


44,980 


100.0 



MISDEMEANORS 

DWI Appeal 

Other Motor Vehicle Appeal 
Non-Motor Vehicle Appeal 
Misdemeanor Originating in Superior Court 
TOTAL 



5,774 
6,047 

17,021 
2,357 

31,199 



18.5 

19.4 

54.6 

7.5 

100.0 



"Other" felony cases include a wide variety of offenses 
defined in the North Carolina General Statutes that do not 
fit squarely into any of the listed offenses above, including 
kidnapping, trespassing, crimes against public morality, 



perjury, and obstructing justice. When more than one 
offense is charged, the first offense listed in the criminal 
pleading (originating document) is used to assign the case 
type given above. 



104 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 









Fel 


anies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 




Totnl 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


District 1 


























Camden 


6 


32 


38 


32 


84 . 2% 


6 


30 


62 


92 


71 


77.2% 


21 


Chowan 


35 


30 


65 


56 


86.2% 


9 


34 


176 


210 


188 


89 . 5% 


22 


Currituck 


35 


54 


89 


76 


85.4% 


13 


38 


113 


151 


126 


83.4% 


25 


Dare 


52 


220 


272 


194 


71.3% 


78 


99 


257 


356 


274 


77.0% 


82 


Gates 


20 


29 


49 


39 


79.6% 


10 


11 


80 


91 


49 


53.8% 


42 


Pasquotank 


70 


207 


277 


206 


74.4% 


71 


127 


609 


736 


605 


82.2% 


131 


Perquimans 


20 


39 


59 


50 


84.7% 


9 


40 


104 


144 


103 


71.5% 


41 


Dist Totals 


238 


611 


849 


653 


76.9% 


196 


379 


1,401 


1,780 


1,416 


79.6% 


364 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


118 


382 


500 


340 


68.0% 


160 


62 


240 


302 


227 


75.2% 


75 


Hyde 


28 


35 


63 


34 


54.0% 


29 


10 


34 


44 


29 


65.9% 


15 


Martin 


14 


118 


132 


119 


90 . 2% 


13 


5 


75 


80 


60 


75.0% 


20 


Tyrrell 


4 


37 


41 


24 


58.5% 


17 


13 


33 


46 


37 


80.4% 


9 


Washington 


12 


52 


64 


53 


82.8% 


11 


21 


88 


109 


89 


81.7% 


20 


Dist Totals 


176 


624 


800 


570 


71.3% 


230 


111 


470 


581 


442 


76.1% 


139 


District 3 


























Carteret 


134 


290 


424 


352 


83.0% 


72 


38 


159 


197 


111 


56.3% 


86 


Craven 


195 


447 


642 


515 


80 . 2% 


127 


61 


324 


385 


337 


87 . 5% 


48 


Pamlico 


25 


37 


62 


43 


69.4% 


19 


3 


32 


35 


29 


82 . 9% 


6 


Pitt 


165 


854 


1,019 


872 


85.6% 


147 


122 


798 


920 


784 


85.2% 


136 


Dist Totals 


519 


1,628 


2,147 


1,782 


83.0% 


365 


224 


1,313 


1,537 


1,261 


82.0% 


276 


District 4 


























Duplin 


64 


435 


499 


449 


90.0% 


50 


5 


85 


90 


78 


86 . 7% 


12 


Jones 


1 


82 


83 


81 


97.6% 


2 


3 


17 


20 


19 


95.0% 


1 


Onslow 


237 


854 


1,091 


908 


83.2% 


183 


39 


237 


276 


233 


84.4% 


43 


Sampson 


36 


292 


328 


298 


90.9% 


30 


1 


50 


51 


50 


98.0% 


1 


Dist Totals 


338 


1,663 


2,001 


1,736 


86.8% 


265 


48 


389 


437 


380 


87.0% 


57 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


544 


1,779 


2,323 


1,972 


84.9% 


351 


171 


777 


948 


776 


81.9% 


172 


Pender 


13 


79 


92 


65 


70.7% 


27 


22 


46 


68 


54 


79.4% 


14 


Dist Totals 


557 


1,858 


2,415 


2,037 


84 . 3% 


378 


193 


823 


1,016 


830 


81.7% 


186 


District 6 


























Bertie 


20 


116 


136 


123 


90.4% 


13 


19 


103 


122 


94 


77.0% 


28 


Halifax 


45 


374 


419 


297 


70.9% 


122 


60 


345 


405 


289 


71.4% 


116 


Hertford 


57 


115 


172 


152 


88.4% 


20 


23 


136 


159 


128 


80.5% 


31 


Northampton 


9 


146 


155 


98 


63.2% 


57 


21 


75 


96 


77 


80.2% 


19 


Dist Totals 


131 


751 


882 


670 


76.0% 


212 


123 


659 


782 


588 


75.2% 


194 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 


62 


348 


410 


357 


87.1% 


53 


39 


190 


229 


200 


87.3% 


29 


Nash 


45 


479 


524 


412 


78.6% 


112 


57 


365 


422 


393 


93.1% 


29 


Wilson 


77 


427 


504 


452 


89.7% 


52 


54 


213 


267 


188 


70.4% 


79 


Dist Totals 


184 


1,254 


1,438 


1,221 


84.9% 


217 


150 


768 


918 


781 


85.1% 


137 


District 8 


























Greene 


15 


74 


89 


60 


67.4% 


29 


14 


94 


108 


78 


72.2% 


30 


Lenoir 


94 


299 


393 


334 


85.0% 


59 


106 


443 


549 


443 


80.7% 


106 


Wayne 


242 


581 


823 


636 


77.3% 


187 


168 


630 


798 


659 


82.6% 


139 


Dist Totals 


351 


954 


1,305 


1,030 


78.9% 


275 


288 


1,167 


1,455 


1,180 


81.1% 


275 



105 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



July 1, 19S5 - June 30, 1986 

Felonies 



Begin 
Pending 
7 1 85 



End 

Total % Caseload Pending 

Filed Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/86 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

Dist Totals 

District 10 
Wake 

District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 

Dist Totals 

District 12 



50 

162 
94 

132 
30 

468 



1,736 



195 
230 
120 
393 

71 



245 
392 
214 
525 
101 



205 


83 . 7% 


40 


300 


76.5% 


92 


180 


84.1% 


34 


396 


75.4% 


129 


66 


65.3% 


35 



1,009 1,477 



1,147 



77.7% 



330 



3,612 5,348 3,265 



23 
19 
23 

h3 



176 


199 


297 


316 


299 


322 



265 


61.1% 


2,083 


136 


68.3% 


63 


247 


78.2% 


69 


225 


69.9% 


97 



772 



837 



608 



72.6% 



229 



Cumberland 
Hoke 


368 

7 


1,157 
129 


1,525 
136 


1,016 

109 


66.6% 
80.1% 


509 
27 


Dist Totals 


375 


1,286 


1,661 


1,125 


67.7% 


536 


District 13 















Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

Dist Totals 

District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

Dist Totals 

District 16 



53 

140 

59 

252 



631 



317 



46 

137 

183 



204 


257 


272 


412 


233 


292 



99 


38.5% 


158 


234 


56 . 8% 


178 


192 


65.8% 


100 



709 



961 



1,309 1,940 



1,139 1,456 



84 
376 

460 



130 
513 

643 



525 
1,469 
1,003 

9a 

410 
508 



54.6% 



75.7% 



68 . 9% 



75.4% 
79.9% 

79.0% 



436 



471 



453 



32 

103 

135 



39 



116 
16 

132 



32 
37 
5b 

125 



234 



277 



9 
21 

30 



Misdemeanors 



Begin 








'ending 




Total 




7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


39 


150 


189 


141 


107 


214 


321 


215 


177 


248 


425 


339 


121 


335 


456 


338 


44 


76 


120 


89 


488 


1,023 


1,511 


1,122 


421 


1,685 


2,106 


1,664 


23 


80 


103 


93 


36 


247 


283 


267 


30 


192 


222 


176 



End 
% Caseload Pending 
Disposed 6/30/86 



519 



563 
69 

632 



608 



679 
85 

764 



112 


144 


111 


148 


187 


243 



410 



431 



610 



51 
73 

124 



535 



665 



60 

94 

154 



Stokes 
Surry 

Dist Totals 



40 
79 

119 



266 
430 

696 



306 
509 



315 



259 
462 

721 



84.6% 
90.8% 

88 . 5% 



47 
47 

94 



36 
63 

99 



195 
498 

693 



231 
561 

792 



536 



596 
70 

666 



93 

80 

177 

350 



454 



663 



38 
73 

111 



201 
485 

686 



74.6% 
67.0% 
79.8% 
74.1% 
74.2% 

74.3% 



79.0% 



90.3% 
94 . 3% 
79.3% 

88.2% 



87.8% 
82.4% 

87.2% 



64.6% 
54.1% 
72.8% 

65.4% 



68.3% 



74.7% 



63 . 3% 
77.7% 

72.1% 



87.0% 
86.5% 

86.6% 



48 
106 

86 
118 

31 

389 



442 



10 

16 
46 

72 



83 
15 

98 



51 
68 
66 

185 



211 



224 



22 

21 

43 



Robeson 


263 


1,227 


1,490 


1,147 


77.0% 


343 


208 


692 


900 


652 


72.4% 


248 


Scotland 


196 


340 


536 


417 


77.8% 


119 


206 


354 


560 


337 


60.2% 


223 


Dist Totals 


459 


1,567 


2,026 


1,564 


77.2% 


462 


414 


1,046 


1,460 


989 


67.7% 


471 


District 17A 


























Caswell 


6 


112 


118 


114 


96.6% 


4 


17 


112 


129 


116 


89.9% 


13 


Rockingham 


79 


661 


740 


626 


84.6% 


114 


103 


644 


747 


650 


87.0% 


97 


Dist Totals 


85 


773 


858 


740 


86.2% 


118 


120 


756 


876 


766 


87.4% 


110 


District 17B 



























30 
76 

106 



106 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 









Fel 


jnies 










Misdemeanors 








Begin 










End 


Begin 












End 




Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


District 18 


7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


Guilford 


1,388 


3,380 


4,768 


2,996 


62.8% 


1,772 


319 


766 


1,085 




787 


72.5% 


298 


District 19A 




























Cabarrus 


203 


718 


921 


626 


68.0% 


295 


297 


760 


1,057 




776 


73.4% 


281 


Rowan 


103 


741 


844 


721 


85.4% 


123 


159 


533 


692 




560 


80.9% 


132 


Dist Totals 


306 


1,459 


1,765 


1,347 


76.3% 


418 


456 


1,293 


1,749 


1 


,336 


76.4% 


413 


District 19B 




























Montgomery 


106 


487 


593 


212 


35.8% 


381 


133 


429 


562 




353 


62.8% 


209 


Randolph 


228 


558 


786 


566 


72.0% 


220 


287 


1,108 


1,395 


1 


,113 


79.8% 


282 


Dist Totals 


334 


1,045 


1,379 


778 


56.4% 


601 


420 


1,537 


1,957 


1 


,466 


74.9% 


491 


District 20 




























Anson 


30 


222 


252 


165 


65.5% 


87 


53 


258 


311 




205 


65.9% 


106 


Moore 


118 


547 


665 


583 


87.7% 


82 


57 


439 


496 




397 


80.0% 


99 


Richmond 


247 


456 


703 


571 


81.2% 


132 


156 


387 


543 




370 


68.1% 


173 


Stanly 


77 


437 


514 


416 


80.9% 


98 


62 


300 


362 




277 


76.5% 


85 


Union 


43 


687 


730 


604 


82.7% 


126 


99 


540 


639 




517 


80 . 9% 


122 


Dist Totals 


515 


2,349 


2,864 


2,339 


81.7% 


525 


427 


1,924 


2,351 


1 


,766 


75.1% 


585 


District 21 




























Forsyth 


332 


1,924 


2,256 


1,943 


86.1% 


313 


227 


2,168 


2,395 


2 


,086 


87.1% 


309 


District 22 




























Alexander 


50 


51 


101 


86 


85.1% 


15 


21 


149 


170 




138 


81.2% 


32 


Davidson 


129 


293 


422 


314 


74.4% 


108 


124 


521 


645 




508 


78.8% 


137 


Davie 


31 


37 


68 


59 


86.8% 


9 


38 


170 


208 




160 


76.9% 


48 


Iredell 


175 


341 


516 


422 


81.8% 


94 


246 


672 


918 




749 


81.6% 


169 


Dist Totals 


385 


722 


1,107 


881 


79.6% 


226 


429 


1,512 


1,941 


1 


,555 


80.1% 


386 


District 23 




























Alleghany 


24 


21 


45 


32 


71.1% 


13 


7 


35 


42 




21 


50.0% 


21 


Ashe 


17 


109 


126 


75 


59.5% 


51 


31 


35 


66 




47 


71.2% 


19 


Wilkes 


92 


215 


307 


186 


60.6% 


121 


99 


339 


438 




322 


73.5% 


116 


Yadkin 


52 


134 


186 


164 


88.2% 


22 


46 


140 


186 




157 


84 . 4% 


29 


Dist Totals 


185 


479 


664 


457 


68.8% 


207 


183 


549 


732 




547 


74.7% 


185 


District 24 




























Avery 


19 


74 


93 


75 


80.6% 


18 


12 


24 


36 




28 


77.8% 


8 


Madison 


30 


112 


142 


65 


45.8% 


77 


14 


24 


38 




21 


55.3% 


17 


Mitchell 


18 


122 


140 


83 


60.7% 


55 


27 


40 


67 




59 


88.1% 


8 


Watauga 


92 


244 


336 


258 


76.8% 


78 


36 


80 


116 




99 


85 . 3% 


17 


Yancey 


21 


64 


85 


44 


51.8% 


41 


5 


18 


23 




10 


43.5% 


13 


Dist Totals 


180 


616 


796 


527 


66.2% 


269 


94 


186 


280 




217 


77.5% 


63 


District 25 




























Burke 


176 


425 


601 


294 


48.9% 


307 


189 


469 


658 




402 


61.1% 


256 


Caldwell 


243 


452 


695 


507 


72.9% 


188 


175 


469 


644 




457 


71.0% 


187 


Catawba 


366 


888 


1,254 


890 


71.0% 


364 


246 


778 


1,024 




664 


64.8% 


360 


Dist Totals 


785 


1,765 


2,550 


1,691 


66.3% 


859 


610 


1,716 


2,326 


1 


,523 


65.5% 


803 


District 26 




























Mecklenburg 


1,137 


3,332 


4,469 


2,961 


66.3% 


1,508 


501 


1,596 


2,097 


1 


,456 


69.4% 


641 



107 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 

Felonies Misdemeanors 





Begin 










F.nd 


Begin 










End 




Tending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


7/1/85 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


District 27A 


























Gaston 


205 


1,115 


1,320 


1,045 


79.2% 


275 


200 


872 


1,072 


791 


73.8% 


281 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 


279 


628 


907 


694 


76.5% 


213 


101 


410 


511 


391 


76.5% 


120 


Lincoln 


70 


313 


383 


258 


67.4% 


125 


56 


190 


246 


194 


78.9% 


52 


Dist Totals 


349 


941 


1,290 


952 


73.8% 


338 


157 


600 


757 


585 


77.3% 


172 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


270 


1,090 


1,360 


901 


66.3% 


459 


65 


279 


344 


298 


86.6% 


46 


District 29 


























Henderson 


132 


424 


556 


441 


79.3% 


115 


64 


252 


316 


250 


79.1% 


66 


McDowell 


76 


259 


335 


296 


88 . 4% 


39 


25 


131 


156 


124 


79.5% 


32 


Polk. 


54 


52 


111 


70 


63.1% 


41 


24 


51 


75 


48 


64.0% 


27 


Rutherford 


163 


423 


586 


429 


73.2% 


157 


104 


304 


408 


305 


74.8% 


103 


Transylvania 


79 


121 


200 


137 


68.5% 


63 


30 


77 


107 


93 


86.9% 


14 


Dist Totals 


509 


1,279 


1,788 


1,373 


76.8% 


415 


247 


815 


1,062 


820 


77.2% 


242 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


h3 


56 


119 


40 


33.6% 


79 


47 


53 


100 


20 


20.0% 


80 


Clay 


55 


43 


98 


62 


63.3% 


36 


5 


5 


10 


8 


80.0% 


2 


Graham 


66 


35 


101 


85 


84.2% 


16 


61 


54 


115 


96 


83 . 5% 


19 


Haywood 


183 


382 


565 


394 


69.7% 


171 


97 


197 


294 


203 


69.0% 


91 


Jackson 


31 


115 


146 


101 


69.2% 


45 


9 


52 


61 


45 


73.8% 


16 


Macon 


42 


89 


131 


93 


71.0% 


38 


24 


61 


85 


56 


65.9% 


29 


Swain 


30 


89 


119 


62 


52.1% 


57 


29 


45 


74 


52 


70.3% 


22 


Dist Totals 


470 


809 


1,279 


837 


65.4% 


442 


272 


467 


739 


480 


65.0% 


259 



State Totals 14,534 



44,980 59,514 43,402 



72.9% 16,112 



1,552 31,199 39,751 30,598 77.0% 9,153 



108 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985— June 30, 1986 



Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged 
(22,996) 



Guilty Plea to 
Lesser Offense 

(4,820) 




3.1% 



Other 

(1,349) 



Not Guilty Plea 
(Jury Trial) 

(2,062) 



Dismissal 

(12,175) 



Guilty pleas continue to account for more than 60% of all 
superior court felony dispositions, with the overwhelming 
majority of these being guilty pleas to the offense as charged. 
Dismissals on this chart include voluntary dismissals with 
and without leave, and speedy trial dismissals. "Other" dispo- 



sitions, i.e. those which do not fall into the specific categories 
given on this chart, may include change of venue, dismissal 
by the court, no true bill, dispositions of writs of habeas 
corpus from fugitive warrants, and dispositions of probation 
violations from other counties. 



109 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 
X of Total 

District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 3 



Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 



District Totals 
% of Total 

District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 6 
Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 

Northampton 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 7 



Edgecombe 
Nash 

Wilson 



District Totals 
% of Total 

District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 
% of Total 



As 
Charged 



6 
9 

12 

81 

11 

81 
12 

242 
37.1% 



215 
20 
64 
13 
23 

335 

58.8% 



146 

248 

16 

164 

574 
32.2% 



83 

30 
591 
205 

909 
52.4% 



1,308 
27 

1,335 
65.5% 



35 

85 
56 
41 

217 
32.4% 



131 
177 
281 

589 
48.2% 



3 
137 

220 

360 
35.0% 



Lesser 
Offense 



14 
29 

2 

63 
9.6% 



33 
6 

34 

3 

18 

94 
16.5% 



37 

46 

14 

414 

511 
28.7% 



128 
8 

1 

137 
7.9% 



146 
18 

164 
8.1% 



31 
81 
21 
13 

146 
21.8% 



72 
87 
61 

220 
18.0% 



40 

55 

.165 

260 
25.2% 



Jury 
Trials 




5 
3 

20 

4 

21 

10 

63 
9.6% 



18 
3 
9 
4 
2 

36 

6.3% 



7 
17 


36 

60 
3.4% 



42 

3 

26 

18 

89 
5.1% 



67 
7 

74 
3.6% 



4 
19 

6 
13 

42 
6.3% 



21 
12 
13 

46 
3.8% 



2 
37 
63 

102 
9.9% 



Without 
Leave 



17 
12 
10 

21 

9 

49 

22 

140 
21.4% 



3 5 
3 

9„ 
3 

9 

59 

10.4% 



121 

194 

7 

196 

518 
29.1% 



161 
38 

262 
69 

530 
30.5% 



356 
7 

363 

17.8% 



47 
99 
68 
23 

237 
35.4% 



96 
115 

83 

294 
24.1% 



13 
98 

151 

262 
25.4% 



With 
Leave 



After Deferred 
Prosecution 



2 
23 

15 
29 

1 
23 

3 

96 

14.7% 



11 

1 



12 
2.1% 



31 
1 
3 

42 

77 
4.3% 



2 8 


10 

2 

40 
2.3% 



63 
1 

64 
3.1% 



2 

2 



4 
0.6% 



2 
2 


4 
0.3% 





5 

19 

24 
2.3% 












0.0% 











0.0% 






(I 




0.0% 









0.0% 







0.0% 









0.0% 








0.0% 









0.0% 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 




0.0% 












0.0% 










0.0% 










0.0% 








0.0% 










0.0% 









0.0% 









0.0% 







Total 




Total 


Negotiated 


ther D 


spositions 


Pleas 


1 


32 


25 


2 


56 


18 


3 


76 


1 


39 


194 


71 





39 


24 


3 


206 


129 


1 


50 


8 


49 


653 


276 


7.5% 


100.0% 


42.3% 


28 


340 


218 


2 


34 


29 


2 


119 


87 


1 


24 


16 


1 


53 


33 


34 


570 


383 


6.0% 


100.0% 


67.2% 


10 


352 


141 


9 


515 


420 


3 


43 


32 


20 


872 


689 


42 


1,782 


1,282 


2.4% 


100.0% 


71.9% 


7 


449 


335 


2 


81 


71 


19 


908 


482 


3 


298 


229 


31 


1,736 


1,117 


1.8% 


100.0% 


64.3% 


32 


1,972 





5 


65 


30 


37 


2,037 


30 


1.8% 


100.0% 


1.5% 


4 


123 


111 


11 


297 


250 


1 


152 


108 


8 


98 


70 


24 


670 


539 


3.6% 


100.0% 


80 . 4% 


35 


357 


238 


19 


412 


236 


14 


452 


389 


68 


1,221 


863 


5.6% 


100.0% 


70.7% 


2 


60 


42 


2 


334 


241 


18 


636 


455 


22 


1,030 


738 


2.1% 


100.0% 


71.7% 



10 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal 



As 
Charged 



Lesser 
Offense 



Jury Without With After Deferred 
Trials Leave Leave Prosecution 



Speedy Total 

Trial Total Negotiated 

Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



District 9 



Franklin 


103 


30 


8 


54 


1 





Granville 


115 


54 


13 


90 


11 





Person 


64 


44 


10 


51 








Vance 


147 


107 


7 


129 


3 





Warren 


21 


17 


1 


4 


8 





District Totals 


450 


252 


39 


328 


23 





% of Total 


39.2% 


22.0% 


3.4% 


28.6% 


2.0% 


0.0% 


District 10 














Wake 


1,964 


125 


40 


788 


313 





% of Total 


60.2% 


3.8% 


1.2% 


24.1% 


9.6% 


0.0% 


District 11 














Harnett 


67 


17 


15 


36 








Johnston 


168 


34 


11 


27 


2 





Lee 


113 


49 


15 


44 


3 





District Totals 


348 


100 


41 


107 


5 





% of Total 


57.2% 


16.4% 


6.7% 


17.6% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


District 12 














Cumberland 


667 


85 


57 


110 


33 





Hoke 


92 


3 


4 


2 








District Totals 


759 


88 


61 


112 


33 





% of Total 


67.5% 


7.8% 


5.4% 


10.0% 


2.9% 


0.0% 


District 13 














Bladen 


39 


23 


9 


18 


2 





Brunswick 


127 


13 


13 


74 


3 





Columbus 


81 


27 


30 


42 


4 





District Totals 


247 


63 


52 


134 


9 





% of Total 


47.0% 


12.0% 


9.9% 


25.5% 


1.7% 


0.0% 


District 14 














Durham 


884 


2 


81 


440 


43 





% of Total 


60 . 2% 


0.1% 


5.5% 


30.0% 


2.9% 


0.0% 


District 15A 














Alamance 


648 


91 


67 


155 


19 





% of Total 


64.6% 


9.1% 


6.7% 


15.5% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


District 15B 














Chatham 


40 


16 


13 


9 








Orange 


215 


17 


17 


151 


1 





District Totals 


255 


33 


30 


160 


1 





% of Total 


50.2% 


6.5% 


5.9% 


31.5% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


District 16 














Robeson 


899 





113 


68 


6 





Scotland 


328 


37 


25 


10 


7 





District Totals 


1,227 


37 


138 


78 


13 





% of Total 


78.5% 


2.4% 


8.8% 


5.0% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


District 17A 














Caswell 


47 


32 


2 


31 








Rockingham 


310 


141 


29 


78 


32 


1 


District Totals 


357 


173 


31 


109 


32 


1 


% of Total 


48 . 2% 


23.4% 


4.2% 


14.7% 


4.3% 


0.1% 


District 17B 















Stokes 178 34 5 31 5 

Surry 345 33 23 31 10 

District Totals 523 67 28 62 15 

% of Total 72.5% 9.3% 3.9% 8.6% 2.1% 0.0% 










9 
17 

11 

3 
15 


205 
300 
180 
396 
66 



0.0% 


55 
4.8% 


1,147 
100.0% 



0.0% 


35 

1.1% 


3,265 
100.0% 








1 

5 
1 


136 
247 
225 



0.0% 


7 
1.2% 


608 
100.0% 






64 
8 


1,016 
109 



0.0% 


72 
6.4% 


1,125 
100.0% 





1 


8 
4 

7 


99 

234 
192 


1 

0.2% 


19 
3.6% 


525 
100.0% 



0.0% 


19 
1.3% 


1,469 
100.0% 



0.0% 


23 
2.3% 


1,003 
100.0% 






20 
9 


98 
410 



0.0% 


29 

5.7% 


508 
100.0% 







61 
10 


1,147 
417 



0.0% 


71 
4.5% 


1,564 
100.0% 


I) 




2 
35 


114 
626 



0.0% 


37 
5.0% 


740 
100.0% 







6 
20 


259 
462 



0.0% 


26 
3.6% 


721 
100.0% 



160 
170 
108 
331 
46 

815 
71.1% 



2,060 
63.1% 



85 
202 
185 

472 
77.6% 



651 

80 

731 
65.0% 



68 
191 
106 

365 

69.5% 



885 
60.2% 



721 

71.9% 



72 
294 

366 

72.0% 



193 
138 

331 
21.2% 



1 

446 



447 
60.4% 



27 
200 

227 
31.5% 



111 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Guilty Pleas 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

DA Dismissal 



Speedy Total 

As Lesser Jury Without With After Deferred Trial Total Negotiated 

Charged Offense Trials Leave Leave Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



District 18 
Guilford 
X of Total 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 



District Totals 
Z of Total 

District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 

District Totals 
% of Total 

District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 
X of Total 

District 21 



Forsyth 

% of Total 

District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 
X of Total 

District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 

District Totals 
X of Total 

District 24 



Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 
Yancey 

District Totals 
X of Total 

District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 

District Totals 
X of Total 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 
X of Total 



1,990 





65 


697 


146 


66.4% 


0.0% 


2.2% 


23.3% 


4.9% 


237 


144 


25 


186 


11 


401 


98 


24 


177 


13 


638 


242 


49 


363 


24 


47.4% 


18.0% 


3.6% 


26.9% 


1.8% 


56 


64 


3 


61 





383 


43 


15 


85 


25 


439 


107 


18 


146 


25 


56.4% 


13.8% 


2.3% 


18.8% 


3.2% 


40 


73 


4 


43 


1 


226 


74 


11 


253 


2 


193 


83 


8 


282 


3 


114 


84 


6 


196 


8 


131 


214 


19 


226 


4 


704 


528 


48 


1,000 


18 


30.1% 


22.6% 


2.1% 


42.8% 


0.8% 


1,478 


74 


34 


284 


46 


76.1% 


3.8% 


1.7% 


14.6% 


2.4% 


40 


L5 


1 


19 





L57 


54 


18 


60 


2 


18 


21 


2 


8 


4 


171 


68 


16 


100 


14 


386 


158 


37 


187 


20 


43.8% 


17.9% 


4.2% 


21.2% 


2.3% 


1 3 


1 


6 





1 


34 


8 


15 


7 





74 


2 9 


40 


25 


1 


121 


Z r J 


1 


14 


1 


242 


63 


62 


46 


3 


53.0% 


13.8% 


13.6% 


10.1% 


0.7% 


1 


L6 


29 


22 


7 


2 


11 


15 


29 


3 


26 


14 


2 


38 





30 


K, 


8 


112 


20 


3 


2 





14 


2 


62 


142 


54 


215 


32 


11.8% 


26.9% 


10.2% 


40.8% 


6.1% 


84 


60 


25 


116 


4 


96 


137 


19 


213 


23 


437 


66 


43 


307 


11 


617 


263 


87 


636 


38 


36.5% 


15.6% 


5.1% 


37.6% 


2.2% 


1,731 





188 


906 


54 


58.5% 


0.0% 


6.3% 


30.6% 


1 .8% 




0.0% 







0.0% 








0.0% 











0.0% 




0.0% 









0.0% 









0.0% 





1 






1 

0.2% 









0.0% 



1 

.0% 




0.0% 





1 
1 

0.1% 







0.0% 











0.0% 




0.0% 











0.0% 







1 



1 

0.2% 







2 


2 
0.4% 





1 

13 

14 
0.8% 




0.0% 



98 

3.3% 



23 
7 

30 
2.2% 



28 
15 

43 

5.5% 



4 
17 

2 

8 
10 

41 
1.8% 



27 
1.4% 



11 

23 

6 

53 

93 

10.6% 



11 

11 

16 

2 

40 
8.8% 




4 
5 
10 


19 

3.6% 



5 
18 

13 

36 

2.1% 



81 
2.7% 



2,996 

100.0% 



626 
721 

1,347 
100.0% 



212 
566 

778 
100.0% 



165 
583 
571 
416 
604 

2,339 

100.0% 



1,943 
100.0% 



86 
314 

59 
422 

881 

100.0% 



32 

75 

186 

164 

457 
100.0% 



75 

65 
85 

258 
44 

527 
100.0% 



294 
507 
890 

1,691 

100.0% 



2,961 

100.0% 



1,842 
61.5% 



366 
527 

893 

66 . 3% 



115 

391 

506 

65.0% 



118 
519 
519 
342 
515 

2,013 
86.1% 



663 
34.1% 



67 
203 

31 
209 

510 
57.9% 



27 

59 

84 

145 

315 
68.9% 



34 

14 

63 

186 

40 

337 
63.9% 



233 
308 
661 

1,202 
71.1% 



17 

0.6% 



12 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF FELONIES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 





Gui 


Ity Pleas 


Jury 
Trials 




DA D 


smissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other D 


Total 
ispositions 


Total 




As 
Charged 


Lesser 
Offense 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


District 27A 
Gaston 

% of Total 


481 
46 . 0% 



0.0% 


67 
6.4% 


391 
37.4% 


58 
5.6% 



0.0% 


3 

0.3% 


45 
4.3% 


1,045 
100.0% 


468 
44.8% 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


269 
111 


91 
75 


35 
15 


281 
45 


8 







2 



8 

12 


694 
258 


547 

144 


District Totals 
% of Total 


380 
39.9% 


166 
17.4% 


50 
5.3% 


326 
34 . 2% 


8 
0.8% 



0.0% 


2 
0.2% 


20 
2.1% 


952 
100.0% 


691 
72.6% 


District 28 
Buncombe 
% of Total 


705 
78.2% 


7 
0.8% 


39 

4.3% 


103 
11.4% 


26 
2.9% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


21 
2.3% 


901 
100.0% 


120 
13.3% 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


195 

149 
27 

264 
77 


41 
64 
23 
58 
20 


21 
12 

2 
22 

6 


139 
67 
17 

80 
27 


35 
1 

1 
5 
















10 
3 
1 
4 
2 


441 
296 
70 
429 
137 


287 
204 
55 
314 
100 


District Totals 
% of Total 


712 
51.9% 


206 
15.0% 


63 

4.6% 


330 
24.0% 


42 
3.1% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


20 
1.5% 


1,373 
100.0% 


960 
69 . 9% 


District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


16 
15 

8 
135 

6 
19 

9 


1 
41 
10 
97 
49 
24 
16 


16 
4 
2 

29 
5 

12 

13 


7 
1 
50 
95 
28 
27 
23 





14 

13 

1 

1 






1 


4 
10 

















1 
21 

2 
10 

1 


40 
62 
85 
394 
101 
93 
62 


39 
41 
24 
233 
46 
46 
33 


District Totals 
% of Total 


208 
24 . 9% 


238 

28.4% 


81 
9.7% 


231 
27.6% 


29 
3.5% 


15 
1.8% 



0.0% 


35 
4.2% 


837 
100.0% 


462 
55.2% 


State Totals 
% of Total 


22,996 
53 . 0% 


4,820 
11.1% 


2,062 

4.8% 


10,737 
24.7% 


1,396 

3.2% 


18 
.0% 


24 
0.1% 


1,349 
3.1% 


43,402 
100.0% 


23,647 
54 . 5% 



13 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985— June 30, 1986 



Guilty Plea to 

Lesser Offense 

(1.242) 



Not Guilty Plea 

(Jury Trial) 

(1,244) 



4.1% 



Dismissal 
(7,300) 




Guilty Plea to Offense 
Charged 
(10,549) 



Other 

(10,263) 



Guilty pleas account for nearly 40% of misdemeanor dispo- 
sitions in superior court, the overwhelming majority of which 
are guilty pleas to the offense charged. The "other" category 
on this chart includes withdrawn appeals, cases remanded to 
district court for judgment, and other miscellaneous disposi- 



tions such as change of venue, dismissal by the court, no true 
bill, probation violations from other counties, and disposi- 
tions of writs of habeas corpus from fugitive warrants. Dis- 
missals on this chart include voluntary dismissals with and 
without leave, and speedy trial dismissals. 



114 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Guilty Pleas DA Dismissal 



As 
Charged 



Lesser 
Offense 



Jury 
Trials 



Without 
Leave 



With 
Leave 



After Deferred 
Prosecution 



Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 



Other 



Total 
Dispositions 



Total 

Negotiated 

Pleas 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



25 
72 
74 

147 
25 

187 
41 




6 

18 
8 

10 
7 




6 
5 

24 
1 

20 
2 



11 
8 
26 
13 
3 
86 
17 



5 

10 

12 

33 

2 

27 




22 
92 
3 
39 
10 
275 
36 



71 

188 
126 
274 
49 
605 
103 



11 
53 

1 
45 

9 
61 

4 



District Totals 
% of Total 



571 

40.3% 



57 
4.0% 



58 

4.1% 



164 

11.6% 



89 

6.3% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



477 

33.7% 



1416 
100.0% 



184 
13.0% 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



116 
9 

12 
16 

14 



25 
4 
8 
1 
6 



14 
4 

12 
8 

19 



23 
3 

4 
3 
7 



41 

9 

24 

9 

43 



227 
29 
60 
37 

89 



38 
4 
9 

12 

4 



District Totals 
% of Total 



167 

37.8% 



44 
10.0% 



57 
12.9% 



40 
9.0% 



1.8% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



126 
28.5% 



442 
100.0% 



67 
15.2% 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 



26 

148 

7 

240 



20 

12 

1 

39 



7 
16 

1 
35 



27 

83 

15 

117 



18 

12 



36 



13 

66 

5 

317 



111 

337 

29 

784 



24 

81 

10 

214 



District Totals 
% of Total 



421 

33.4% 



72 
5.7% 



59 

4.7% 



242 
19.2% 



66 

5.2% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



401 
31.8% 



1261 
100.0% 



329 
26.1% 



District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 



14 

4 

97 

31 



16 
3 





3 
3 

14 
4 



18 
6 

73 

7 



21 
3 

43 
7 



78 

19 

233 

50 



3b 
11 
52 

15 



District Totals 
% of Total 



146 

38.4% 



19 
5.0% 



24 
6.3% 



104 
27.4% 



13 
3.4% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



74 
19.5% 



380 
100.0% 



114 

30.0% 



District 5 
New Hanover 
Pender 



459 

25 



15 
15 



26 
4 



103 
2 



63 
1 



110 
7 



776 
54 




16 



District Totals 
% of Total 



484 
58.3% 



30 
3.6% 



30 
3.6% 



105 
12.7% 



64 
7.7% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



117 
14.1% 



830 
100.0% 



16 
1.9% 



District 6 

Bertie 

Halifax 

Hertford 

Northampton 



12 

81 
39 

24 



14 

16 

6 

3 



7 

10 

5 

1 



32 
35 
54 
17 



29 

139 

24 

26 



94 
289 
128 

77 



36 

78 
51 
21 



District Totals 
% of Total 



156 

26.5% 



39 

6.6% 



23 

3.9% 



138 

23.5% 



14 
2.4% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



218 
37.1% 



588 
100.0% 



186 
31.6% 



District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 



39 

136 

69 



20 

18 

12 



10 
14 



47 
83 
30 



12 
8 
4 



72 

134 

65 



200 
393 
188 



47 
18 
79 



District Totals 
% of Total 



244 
31.2% 



50 

6.4% 



32 

4.1% 



160 

20.5% 



24 
3.1% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



271 
34 . 7% 



781 

100.0% 



144 
18.4% 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



11 

128 
157 



6 

17 
52 



4 

20 
40 



9 

95 
116 




24 
48 



48 
159 
246 



78 

443 
659 



4 
156 
129 



District Totals 
% of Total 



296 
25.1% 



75 
6.4% 



64 
5.4% 



220 
18.6% 



72 
6.1% 




0.0% 




0.0% 



453 
38.4% 



1,180 
100.0% 



289 
24.5% 



115 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

DA Dismissal 



Guilty Pleas 

As Lesser 

Charged Offense 



Jury Without With After Deferred 
Trials Leave Leave Prosecution 



Speedy Total 

Trial Total Negotiated 

Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



District 9 



Franklin 


44 


8 


3 


27 


5 


Granville 


b8 


17 


8 


44 


6 


Person 


121 


28 


17 


115 


3 


Vance 


160 


19 


8 


95 


12 


Warren 


27 


12 


4 


12 


4 


District Totals 


420 


84 


40 


293 


30 


% of Total 


37.4% 


7.5% 


3.6% 


26.1% 


2.7% 


District 10 












Wake 


447 


23 


38 


209 


442 


% of Total 


26.9% 


1.4% 


2.3% 


12.6% 


26.6% 


District 11 












Harnett 


25 


3 





24 





Johnston 


97 


13 


12 


40 


3 


Lee 


45 


6 


4 


19 


5 


District Totals 


167 


22 


16 


83 


8 


% of Total 


31.2% 


4.1% 


3.0% 


15.5% 


1.5% 


District 12 












Cumberland 


94 


2 


28 


41 


20 


Hoke 


41 





4 


11 





District Totals 


135 


2 


32 


52 


20 


% of Total 


20.3% 


0.3% 


4.8% 


7.8% 


3.0% 


District 13 












Bladen 


29 


9 


8 


21 


2 


Brunswick 


20 


3 


14 


21 





Columbus 


52 


15 


15 


38 





District Totals 


101 


27 


37 


80 


2 


% of Total 


28.9% 


7.7% 


10.6% 


22.9% 


0.6% 


District 14 












Durham 


200 





27 


97 


13 


% of Total 


44.1% 


0.0% 


5.9% 


21.4% 


2.9% 


District 15A 












Alamance 


240 


13 


56 


78 


11 


% of Total 


36.2% 


2.0% 


8.4% 


11.8% 


1.7% 


District 15B 












Chatham 


7 


3 





2 





Orange 


1 1 


1 


3 


21 


5 


District Totals 


18 


4 


3 


23 


5 


X of Total 


16.2% 


3.6% 


2.7% 


20.7% 


4.5% 


District 16 












Robeson 


289 





52 


38 


22 


Scotland 


139 


3 


6 


26 


36 


District Totals 


428 


3 


58 


64 


58 


X of Total 


43.3% 


0.3% 


5.9% 


6.5% 


5.9% 


District 17A 












Caswell 


37 


26 


12 


14 





Rockingham 


332 


23 


22 


77 


2 


District Totals 


369 


49 


34 


91 


2 


X of Total 


48.2% 


6.4% 


4.4% 


11.9% 


0.3% 


District 17B 












Stokes 


78 


20 


14 


23 


11 


Surry 


204 


5 


13 


13 


14 


District Totals 


282 


25 


27 


36 


25 


% of Total 


41.1% 


3.6% 


3.9% 


5.2% 


3.6% 










0.0% 




0.0% 








0.0% 







0.0% 








0.0% 




0.0% 




0.0% 







0.0% 








0.0% 







0.0% 




0.0% 






54 


141 





72 


215 





55 


339 





44 


338 





30 


89 





255 


1,122 


0.0% 


22.7% 


100.0% 


1 


504 


1,664 


0.1% 


30.3% 


100.0% 





41 


93 





102 


267 





97 


176 





240 


536 


0.0% 


44.8% 


100.0% 





411 


596 





14 


70 





425 


666 


0.0% 


63.8% 


100.0% 





24 


93 





22 


80 





57 


177 





103 


350 


0.0% 


29.4% 


100.0% 





117 


454 


0.0% 


25.8% 


100.0% 





265 


663 


0.0% 


40 . 0% 


100.0% 





26 


38 





32 


73 





58 


111 


0.0% 


52.3% 


100.0% 


6 


245 


652 





127 


337 


6 


372 


989 


0.6% 


37.6% 


100.0% 





27 


116 


1 


193 


650 


1 


220 


766 


0.1% 


28.7% 


100.0% 





55 


201 





236 


485 





291 


686 


0.0% 


42.4% 


100.0% 



50 

66 

142 

201 

37 

496 

44.2% 



424 
25.5% 



27 
99 
63 

189 
35.3% 



74 
33 

107 
16.1% 



38 
31 
61 

130 
37.1% 



198 
43.6% 



323 

48.7% 



15 
17 

32 
28.8% 



75 
58 

133 
13.4% 




325 

325 
42 . 4% 



5 

71 

76 
11.1% 



116 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

DA Dismissal 



Guilty Pleas 

As Lesser 

Charged Offense 



Speedy Total 

Jury Without With After Deferred Trial Total Negotiated 

Trials Leave Leave Prosecution Dismissals Other Dispositions Pleas 



District 18 
Guilford 
% of Total 


261 
33.2% 



0.0% 


13 

1.7% 


200 

25.4% 


52 
6.6% 



0.0% 


District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 


250 
205 


43 
17 


22 
15 


168 
70 


39 
36 






District Totals 
% of Total 


455 
34.1% 


60 
4.5% 


37 
2.8% 


238 

17.8% 


75 

5.6% 



0.0% 


District 19B 

Montgomery 

Randolph 


95 
480 


15 
29 


6 
21 


104 
85 



95 






District Totals 
% of Total 


575 
39.2% 


44 
3.0% 


27 
1.8% 


189 

12.9% 


95 
6.5% 



0.0% 


District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


62 

144 

95 

63 

117 


31 

15 
30 
20 
72 


5 

2 
2 
7 
3 


69 
117 
139 

78 
136 


2 
5 

15 
7 

13 









District Totals 
% of Total 


481 
27.2% 


168 
9.5% 


19 

1.1% 


539 
30.5% 


42 
2.4% 



0.0% 


District 21 
Forsyth 

% of Total 


1,011 
48 . 5% 


31 
1.5% 


36 

1.7% 


277 
13.3% 


91 
4.4% 



0.0% 


District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 


30 
118 

56 
155 


11 

21 

8 

30 


10 
11 
10 
29 


25 
97 
21 
99 


1 

34 
3 

29 



2 


2 


District Totals 
% of Total 


359 
23.1% 


70 
4.5% 


60 
3.9% 


242 
15.6% 


67 

4.3% 


4 
0.3% 


District 23 

Alleghany 

Ashe 

Wilkes 

Yadkin 


7 

5 

63 

54 


1 
9 
6 
4 


3 

6 
7 
5 


1 

5 

37 

23 




4 

15 

3 








District Totals 
% of Total 


129 
23.6% 


20 
3.7% 


21 
3.8% 


66 
12.1% 


22 
4.0% 



0.0% 


District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


(J 
1 

20 
20 

1 


4 
2 
5 
6 

3 


4 
5 
2 
12 



5 

11 

23 

37 

4 


3 





12 











District Totals 
% of Total 


42 
19.4% 


20 
9.2% 


23 
10.6% 


80 
36 . 9% 


15 
6.9% 



0.0% 


District 25 
Burke 
Caldwell 
Catawba 


73 

162 

147 


20 
18 

31 


13 
22 
21 


76 
102 

82 


20 

22 

3 









District Totals 
% of Total 


382 

25.1% 


69 
4.5% 


56 
3.7% 


260 

17.1% 


45 
3.0% 



0.0% 


District 26 
Mecklenburg 
% of Total 


457 
31.4% 



0.0% 


67 
4.6% 


599 
41.1% 


7 

0.5% 



0.0% 




0.0% 








0.0% 





1 
1 

0.1% 





8 



8 

.5% 




0.0% 









0.0% 









0.0% 










0.0% 





1 

7 

8 
0.5% 




0.0% 



261 
33.2% 



254 
217 

471 
35.3% 



133 
402 

535 

36.4% 



36 
114 

81 
102 
176 

509 
28.8% 



640 
30.7% 



61 
225 

62 
405 

753 

48.4% 



9 

18 

194 

68 

289 
52.8% 



12. 
2 
9 

12 
2 

37 
17.1% 



200 
130 
373 

703 
46.2% 



326 

22.4% 



787 
100.0% 



776 
560 

1,336 

100.0% 



353 

1,113 

1,466 
100.0% 



205 
397 
370 
277 
517 

1,766 
100.0% 



2,086 
100.0% 



138 
508 
160 
749 

1,555 
100.0% 



21 

47 

322 

157 

547 
100.0% 



28 
21 
59 
99 
10 

217 
100.0% 



402 
457 
664 

1,523 
100.0% 



1,456 
100.0% 



227 

28.8% 



158 
115 

273 
20.4% 



93 
331 

424 
28.9% 



85 
236 
208 
110 
275 

914 
51.8% 



260 
12.5% 



24 

72 

16 

144 

256 
16.5% 



5 
13 
25 

52 

95 

17.4% 



6 
1 

34 

44 
3 



40 . 6% 



109 
143- 
142 

394 

25.9% 



2 
0.1% 



117 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MISDEMEANORS 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 





Guilty Pleas 


Jury 
Trials 




DA Dismissal 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissals 


Other D 


Total 
ispositions 


Total 




As 

Charged 


Lesser 
Offense 


Without 
Leave 


With 
Leave 


After Deferred 
Prosecution 


Negotiated 
Pleas 


District 27A 
Gaston 

Z of Total 


209 
26.4% 


1 
0.1% 


59 

7.5% 


251 
31.7% 


47 
5.9% 



0.0% 


5 
0.6% 


219 
27.7% 


791 
100.0% 


182 
23.0% 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


168 
55 


9 

13 


10 

15 


100 
51 


15 












89 
60 


391 

194 


148 
26 


District Totals 
% of Total 


223 
38 . 1% 


22 
3.8% 


25 
4.3% 


151 
25.8% 


15 
2.6% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


149 
25.5% 


585 
100.0% 


174 
29.7% 


District 28 
Buncombe 
X of Total 


115 
38 . 6% 



0.0% 


9 
3.0% 


45 
15.1% 


29 
9.7% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


100 
33.6% 


298 

100.0% 


16 
5.4% 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


126 

80 

2b 

135 

43 


11 
5 
1 
6 

10 


7 

7 
2 

18 
17 


36 

11 

7 

56 
16 


17 
4 

2 

4 
















53 

17 

12 

88 

3 


250 
124 

48 
305 

93 


98 

53 

21 

132 

45 


District Totals 
X of Total 


410 
50.0% 


33 
4.0% 


51 
6.2% 


126 
15.4% 


27 
3.3% 



0.0% 



0.0% 


173 

21.1% 


820 

100.0% 


349 
42.6% 


District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 


16 
3 

36 
55 
9 
17 
12 


1 
4 
4 
27 
19 
5 
6 



1 
6 
12 
1 

6 


3 


26 

46 

9 

11 

11 





1 

6 



12 








2 

2 














23 
57 
5 
11 
15 


20 
8 
96 
203 
45 
56 
52 


14 
4 
43 
64 
19 
18 
27 


District Totals 
X of Total 


148 
30 . 8% 


66 
13.8% 


26 
5.4% 


106 
22.1% 


19 
4.0% 


4 
0.8% 



0.0% 


111 
23.1% 


480 
100.0% 


189 
39.4% 


State Totals 
X of Total 


10,549 
34.5% 


1,242 
4.1% 


1,244 
4.1% 


5,648 

18.5% 


1,614 
5.3% 


8 

.0% 


30 
0.1% 


10,263 
33.5% 


30,598 
100.0% 


7,605 

24 . 9% 



118 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 









Ages 


of 1'endir 


g Cases (I 


>ays) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>73() 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 


Fel 


(J 


6 














6 


104.7 


105.0 




Mis 


7 


4 


6 


4 








21 


124.3 


110.0 


Chowan 


Fel 


8 








1 








9 


55.6 


28.0 




Mis 


14 


3 


1 


3 


1 





22 


108.7 


69.0 


Currituck 


Fel 


7 


4 


2 











13 


79.9 


75.0 




Mis 


15 


2 


3 


5 








25 


108.0 


77.0 


Dare 


Fel 


32 


8 


25 


10 


2 


1 


78 


148.3 


115.0 




Mis 


51 


3 


11 


10 


7 





82 


126.4 


65.0 


Gates 


Fel 


5 


2 





2 


1 





10 


128.2 


78.5 




Mis 


29 


2 


8 


3 








42 


88.0 


59.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


47 


5 


9 


1 


9 





71 


105.0 


63.0 




Mis 


80 


18 


19 


13 


1 





131 


85.6 


63.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


2 





4 


3 








9 


148.7 


147.0 




Mis 


11 


7 


10 


6 


7 





41 


192.5 


124.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


101 


25 


40 


17 


12 


1 


196 


121.5 


88.0 


% of Total 




51.5% 


12.8% 


20.4% 


8.7% 


6.1% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


207 


39 


58 


44 


16 





364 


112.3 


70.0 


% of Total 




56.9% 


10.7% 


15.9% 


12.1% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 


Fel 


113 


17 


3 


13 


9 


5 


160 


123.6 


33.0 




Mis 


47 





20 


7 


1 





75 


95.6 


68.0 


Hyde 


Fel 








10 


1 


4 


14 


29 


707.2 


595.0 




Mis 


4 


1 


3 


5 





2 


15 


371.6 


161.0 


Martin 


Fel 


8 





1 


2 


2 





L3 


121.8 


26.0 




Mis 


11 


3 


1 


5 








20 


99.6 


69.0 


Tyrrell 


Fel 


14 


1 


2 











17 


63.6 


63.0 




Mis 


8 








1 








9 


67.0 


33.0 


Washington 


Fel 


7 


1 


1 


2 








11 


94.0 


49.0 




Mis 


9 


7 


1 


1 


2 





20 


124.4 


104.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


142 


19 


17 


18 


15 


19 


230 


191.3 


33.0 


% of Total 




61.7% 


8.3% 


7.4% 


7.8% 


6.5% 


8.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


79 


11 


25 


19 


3 


2 


139 


128.2 


77.0 


% of Total 




56.8% 


7.9% 


18.0% 


13.7% 


2.2% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 3 






















Carteret 


Fel 


31 


1 


21 


16 


3 





72 


139.3 


147.0 




Mis 


42 


7 


15 


15 


7 





86 


121.6 


103.5 


Craven 


Fel 


56 


21 


13 


15 


19 


3 


127 


168.9 


112.0 




Mis 


31 


3 


10 


3 


1 





48 


83.8 


73.0 


Pamlico 


Fel 


12 





4 


1 


2 





19 


134.9 


77.0 




Mis 


5 


1 














6 


80.0 


87.0 


Pitt 


Fel 


92 


17 


24 


10 


4 





147 


90.7 


53.0 




Mis 


92 


3 


25 


15 


1 





136 


87.1 


48.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


191 


39 


62 


42 


28 


3 


365 


129.8 


83.0 


% of Total 




52.3% 


10.7% 


17.0% 


11.5% 


7.7% 


0.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


170 


14 


50 


33 


9 





276 


97.1 


56.0 


% of Total 




61.6% 


5.1% 


18.1% 


12.0% 


3.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 4 






















Duplin 


Fel 


44 


6 














50 


36.6 


11.0 




Mis 


12 














(J 


12 


19.2 


5.0 


Jones 


Fel 





2 














2 


98.0 


98.0 




Mis 


1 

















1 


77.0 


77.0 


Onslow 


Fel 


165 


10 


8 











183 


49.0 


47.0 




Mis 


42 


1 














43 


33.1 


33.0 


Sampson 


Fel 


30 

















30 


35.1 


21.0 




Mis 


1 

















1 


25.0 


25.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


239 


18 


8 











265 


45.5 


45.0 


% of Total 




90.2% 


6.8% 


3.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


56 


1 














57 


30.8 


33.0 


% of Total 




98.2% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







119 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 









Ages 


of Pendi 


ng Cases (I 


•ays) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


217 


25 


50 


47 


11 


1 


351 


118.3 


83.0 




Mis 


117 


6 


24 


14 


11 





172 


104.2 


57.0 


Pender 


Fel 


17 


1 


5 


1 


2 


1 


27 


139.3 


56.0 




Mis 


3 


1 


5 


4 


1 





14 


173.4 


131.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


234 


26 


55 


48 


13 


2 


378 


119.8 


83.0 


% of Total 




61.9% 


6.9% 


14.6% 


12.7% 


3.4% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


120 


7 


29 


18 


12 





186 


109.4 


62.5 


% of Total 




64.5% 


3.8% 


15.6% 


9.7% 


6.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 6 






















Bertie 


Fel 


6 


2 


5 











13 


100.4 


102.0 




Mis 


23 


2 


1 


2 








28 


71.2 


74.0 


Halifax 


Fel 


72 


5 


10 


31 


2 


2 


122 


126.2 


84.0 




Mis 


71 


6 


11 


19 


7 


2 


116 


125.6 


66.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


16 











4 





20 


114.2 


27.5 




Mis 


18 


1 


4 


7 


1 





31 


112.8 


59.0 


Northampton 


Fel 


30 


8 


15 


3 





1 


57 


95.1 


63.0 




Mis 


8 


1 


2 


7 


1 





19 


154.3 


130.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


124 


15 


30 


34 


6 


3 


212 


115.1 


63.0 


% of Total 




58.5% 


7.1% 


14.2% 


16.0% 


2.8% 


1.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


120 


10 


18 


35 


9 


2 


194 


118.5 


72.0 


% of Total 




61.9% 


5.2% 


9.3% 


18.0% 


4.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 7 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


48 


3 


1 





1 





53 


34.5 


7.0 




Mis 


20 


2 


4 





3 





29 


91.3 


54.0 


Nash 


Fel 


94 


2 


15 


1 








112 


62.5 


47.0 




Mis 


17 


5 


2 


1 


3 


1 


29 


154.6 


88.0 


Wilson 


Fel 


36 


6 


3 


5 


2 





52 


98.4 


66.5 




Mis 


61 


3 


4 


1 


9 


1 


79 


90.3 


21.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


178 


11 


19 


6 


3 





217 


64.2 


42.0 


% of Total 




82.0% 


5.1% 


8.8% 


2.8% 


1.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


98 


10 


10 


2 


15 


2 


137 


104.2 


26.0 


% of Total 




71.5% 


7.3% 


7.3% 


1.5% 


10.9% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 8 






















Greene 


Fel 


16 





11 


1 


1 





29 


98.1 


76.0 




Mis 


21 


5 


3 


1 








30 


61.8 


55.5 


Lenoir 


Fel 


37 


11 


4 


7 








59 


97.7 


84.0 




Mis 


76 


18 


9 


3 


(J 





106 


68.3 


63.0 


Wayne 


Fel 


127 


27 


29 


4 








187 


83.1 


84.0 




Mis 


85 


22 


21 


11 








139 


81.9 


56.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


180 


38 


44 


12 


1 





275 


87.8 


84.0 


% of Total 




65.5% 


13.8% 


16.0% 


4.4% 


0.4% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


182 


45 


33 


15 








275 


74.4 


62.0 


% of Total 




66.2% 


16.4% 


12.0% 


5.5% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


25 


8 


1 


3 


3 





40 


89.6 


42.0 




Mis 


L9 


7 


2 


5 


9 


6 


48 


352.6 


119.0 


Granville 


Fel 


29 


14 


2 


20 


15 


12 


92 


467.2 


182.0 




Mis 


34 


12 


11 


27 


20 


2 


106 


238.2 


153.0 


Person 


Fel 


14 


3 





6 


3 


8 


34 


328.9 


167.5 




Mis 


39 


1 1 


9 


18 


8 


1 


86 


165.2 


102.0 


Vance 


Fel 


65 


24 


12 


L6 


6 


6 


129 


208.2 


84.0 




Mis 


69 


17 


9 


10 


9 


4 


118 


140.1 


62.0 


Warren 


Fel 


21 





6 


4 


4 





35 


128.1 


75.0 




Mis 


14 


J 1 





4 


2 





31 


112.3 


96.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


154 


49 


21 


49 


31 


26 


330 


270.0 


98.0 


% of Total 




46.7% 


14.8% 


6.4% 


14.8% 


9.4% 


7.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


175 


58 


31 


64 


48 


13 


389 


193.4 


96.0 


% of Total 




45.0% 


14.9% 


8.0% 


16.5% 


12.3% 


3.3% 


100.0% 







120 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 









Ages 


of Pending 


Cases (Days) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 10 






















Wake 


Fel 


954 


149 


244 


350 


286 


100 


2,083 


208.0 


109.0 


% of Total 




45.8% 


7.2% 


11.7% 


16.8% 


13.7% 


4.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


256 


51 


43 


61 


30 


1 


442 


116.6 


62.0 


% of Total 




57.9% 


11.5% 


9.7% 


13.8% 


6.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


56 


5 


1 








1 


63 


62.5 


32.0 




Mis 


8 


1 





1 








10 


55.1 


42.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


61 


2 


4 


2 








69 


55.2 


33.0 




Mis 


16 

















16 


31.0 


25.0 


Lee 


Fel 


73 


12 


4 


8 








97 


55.0 


46.0 




Mis 


32 


2 


8 


4 








46 


85.2 


67.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


190 


19 


9 


10 





1 


229 


57.1 


32.0 


% of Total 




83.0% 


8.3% 


3.9% 


4.4% 


0.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


56 


3 


8 


5 








72 


69.0 


62.0 


% of Total 




77.8% 


4.2% 


11.1% 


6.9% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 12 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


262 


65 


69 


82 


28 


3 


509 


123.3 


76.0 




Mis 


47 


12 


3 


20 


1 





83 


111.6 


77.0 


Hoke 


Fel 


24 





3 











27 


58.3 


49.0 




Mis 


9 





4 


2 








15 


118.1 


52.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


286 


65 


72 


82 


28 


3 


536 


120.0 


76.0 


% of Total 




53.4% 


12.1% 


13.4% 


15.3% 


5.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 








Mis 


56 


12 


7 


22 


1 





98 


112.6 


77.0 


% of Total 




57.1% 


12.2% 


7.1% 


22.4% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


101 


32 


4 


7 


11 


3 


158 


136.4 


82.0 




Mis 


35 


6 


4 


2 


3 


1 


51 


112.1 


60.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


81 


27 


16 


38 


11 


5 


178 


164.8 


96.0 




Mis 


37 


14 


5 


12 








68 


100.1 


64.5 


Columbus 


Fel 


49 


9 


27 


5 


5 


5 


100 


165.9 


96.0 




Mis 


32 


9 


17 


3 


3 


2 


66 


132.8 


105.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


231 


68 


47 


50 


27 


13 


436 


154.8 


82.0 


% of Total 




53.0% 


15.6% 


10.8% 


11.5% 


6.2% 


3.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


104 


29 


26 


17 


6 


3 


185 


115.1 


80.0 


% of Total 




56.2% 


15.7% 


14.1% 


9.2% 


3.2% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 14 






















Durham 


Fel 


221 


36 


58 


101 


30 


25 


471 


189.3 


104.0 


% of Total 




46 . 9% 


7.6% 


12.3% 


21.4% 


6.4% 


5.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


111 


9 


15 


26 


23 


27 


211 


269.5 


82.0 


% of Total 




52.6% 


4.3% 


7.1% 


12.3% 


10.9% 


12.8% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


332 


14 


44 


59 


4 





453 


81.3 


41.0 


% of Total 




73.3% 


3.1% 


9.7% 


13.0% 


0.9% 


0.0% 


"" 100.0% 








Mis 


153 


11 


22 


31 


7 





224 


93.5 


66.0 


% of Total 




68.3% 


4.9% 


9.8% 


13.8% 


3.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 15B 






















Chatham 


Fel 


7 


2 


16 


5 


2 





32 


162.9 


159.0 




Mis 


13 


2 


2 


5 








22 


104.7 


60.0 


Orange 


Fel 


48 


13 


10 


29 


3 





103 


129.8 


94.0 




Mis 


12 


6 


2 





1 





21 


96.7 


74.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


55 


15 


26 


34 


5 





135 


137.6 


118.0 


% of Total 




40.7% 


11.1% 


19.3% 


25.2% 


3.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


25 


8 


4 


5 


1 





43 


100.8 


74.0 


% of Total 




58.1% 


18.6% 


9.3% 


11.6% 


2.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







121 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 



Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



Total 



Mean 



Median 







0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Pending 


Age 


Age 


District 16 






















Robeson 


Fel 


223 


32 


48 


25 


11 


4 


343 


105.5 


60.0 




Mis 


152 


13 


27 


25 


28 


3 


248 


129.9 


60.0 


Scotland 


Fel 


48 


12 


30 


16 


10 


3 


119 


160.0 


118.0 




Mis 


47 


13 


39 


52 


68 


4 


223 


257.1 


245.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


271 


44 


78 


41 


21 


7 


462 


119.5 


78.0 


% of Total 




58.7% 


9.5% 


16.9% 


8.9% 


4.5% 


1.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


199 


26 


66 


77 


96 


7 


471 


190.1 


129.0 


% of Total 




42.3% 


5.5% 


14.0% 


16.3% 


20.4% 


1.5% 


100.0% 






District 17A 






















Caswell 


Fel 


4 

















4 


29.3 


23.0 




Mis 


12 





1 











13 


47.8 


34.0 


Rockingham 


Fel 


84 


11 


17 


1 


1 





114 


60.2 


21.0 




Mis 


78 


11 


4 


4 








97 


61.1 


56.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


88 


11 


17 


1 


1 





118 


59.2 


21.0 


% of Total 




74.6% 


9.3% 


14.4% 


0.8% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


90 


11 


5 


4 








110 


59.5 


56.0 


% of Total 




81.8% 


10.0% 


4.5% 


3.6% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 






















Stokes 


Fel 


23 


16 


1 


7 








47 


92.5 


96.0 




Mis 


20 


2 


1 


7 








30 


79.6 


52.0 


Surry 


Fel 


34 


3 


4 


2 





4 


47 


188.3 


49.0 




Mis 


62 


1 


7 


6 








76 


64.2 


47.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


57 


19 


5 


9 





4 


94 


140.4 


70.0 


% of Total 




60.6% 


20.2% 


5.3% 


9.6% 


0.0% 


4.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


82 


3 


8 


13 








106 


68.6 


48.0 


% of Total 




77.4% 


2.8% 


7.5% 


12.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 






















Guilford 


Fel 


747 


192 


193 


246 


176 


218 


1,772 


259.9 


117.0 


% of Total 




42.2% 


10.8% 


10.9% 


13.9% 


9.9% 


12.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


127 


15 


36 


51 


26 


43 


298 


287.0 


124.0 


% of Total 




42.6% 


5.0% 


12.1% 


17.1% 


8.7% 


14.4% 


100.0% 






District 19A 






















Cabarrus 


Fel 


200 


14 


46 


L5 


17 


3 


295 


113.8 


69.0 




Mis 


217 


27 


21 


10 


6 





281 


71.5 


47.0 


Rowan 


Fel 


93 


2 


6 


18 


2 


2 


123 


120.3 


34.0 




Mis 


86 


12 


20 


9 


5 





132 


92.4 


55.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


293 


16 


52 


33 


19 


5 


418 


115.7 


56.0 


% of Total 




70.1% 


3.8% 


12.4% 


7.9% 


4.5% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


303 


39 


41 


19 


11 





413 


78.1 


47.0 


% of Total 




73.4% 


9.4% 


9.9% 


4.6% 


2.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 






















Montgomery 


Fel 


326 


1 


9 


14 


28 


3 


381 


90.2 


39.0 




Mis 


99 


14 


26 


35 


23 


12 


209 


200.9 


97.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


113 


18 


22 


47 


13 


7 


220 


165.3 


85.5 




Mis 


168 


48 


30 


28 


6 


2 


282 


101.1 


83.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


439 


19 


31 


61 


41 


10 


601 


117.7 


41.0 


% of Total 




73.0% 


3.2% 


5.2% 


10.1% 


6.8% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


267 


62 


56 


63 


29 


14 


491 


143.5 


84.0 


% of Total 




54.4% 


12.6% 


11.4% 


12.8% 


5.9% 


2.9% 


100.0% 







122 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 



0-90 



Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 181-365 366-730 



>730 



Total 
Pending 



Mean 
Age 



Median 

Age 



District 20 



Anson 


Fel 


39 


4 


31 


10 


3 





87 


127.0 


131.0 




Mis 


52 


10 


30 


10 


4 





106 


107.8 


99.5 


Moore 


Fel 


58 


8 


9 


7 








82 


74.9 


47.0 




Mis 


68 


11 


14 


4 


2 





99 


77.8 


40.0 


Richmond 


Fel 


78 


11 


19 


10 


14 





132 


111.6 


57.5 




Mis 


103 


24 


16 


16 


14 





173 


113.0 


82.0 


Stanly 


Fel 


61 


2 


20 


15 








98 


94.0 


52.5 




Mis 


72 


3 


1 


9 








85 


75.9 


73.0 


Union 


Fel 


61 


5 


29 


20 


4 


7 


126 


181.6 


101.0 




Mis 


55 


7 


11 


26 


15 


8 


122 


205.9 


97.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


297 


30 


108 


62 


21 


7 


525 


121.9 


73.0 


% of Total 




56 . 6% 


5.7% 


20.6% 


11.8% 


4.0% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


350 


55 


72 


65 


35 


8 


585 


120.1 


73.0 


% of Total 




59.8% 


9.4% 


12.3% 


11.1% 


6.0% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 21 






















Forsyth 


Fel 


211 


44 


46 


12 








313 


70.0 


60.0 


% of Total 




67.4% 


14.1% 


14.7% 


3.8% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


281 


12 


10 


5 


1 





309 


47.3 


33.0 


% of Total 




90.9% 


3.9% 


3.2% 


1.6% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


7 


2 


4 


1 


1 





15 


110.5 


111.0 




Mis 


24 


2 


4 


1 


1 





32 


68.7 


55.0 


Davidson 


Fel 


56 


9 


26 


11 


4 


2 


108 


142.8 


90.0 




Mis 


112 


11 


4 


9 


1 





137 


52.7 


10.0 


Davie 


Fel 


7 





2 











9 


45.8 


14.0 




Mis 


33 





5 


10 








48 


85.7 


56.0 


Iredell 


Fel 


25 


16 


12 


21 


13 


7 


94 


226.0 


154.0 




Mis 


108 


23 


14 


22 


2 





169 


89.3 


49.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


95 


27 


44 


33 


18 


9 


226 


171.4 


109.5 


% of Total 




42.0% 


11.9% 


19.5% 


14.6% 


8.0% 


4.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


277 


36 


27 


42 


4 





386 


74.2 


49.0 


% of Total 




71.8% 


9.3% 


7.0% 


10.9% 


1.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 23 






















Alleghany 


Fel 


5 





4 


2 


2 





13 


168.0 


153.0 




Mis 


14 


1 


4 


1 


1 





21 


89.5 


56.0 


Ashe 


Fel 


8 


7 


26 


7 


3 





51 


173.3 


151.0 




Mis 


4 


5 


1 


7 


2 





19 


184.8 


123.0 


Wilkes 


Fel 


39 


16 


39 


14 


12 


1 


121 


165.2 


129.0 




Mis 


51 


17 


21 


11 


16 





116 


147.4 


108.0 


Yadkin 


Fel 


13 





7 


2 








22 


101.1 


75.0 




Mis 


13 





4 


9 


3 





29 


173.3 


131.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


65 


23 


76 


25 


17 


1 


207 


160.5 


130.0 


% of Total 




31.4% 


11.1% 


36.7% 


12.1% 


8.2% 


0.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


82 


23 


30 


28 


22 





185 


148.7 


108.0 


% of Total 




44.3% 


12.4% 


16.2% 


15.1% 


11.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 24 























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 



4 

3 
35 

6 
28 

1 
32 

5 
18 



7 


16 


19 

5 
31 

4 
11 

3 



2 
2 

21 
9 
8 
2 

10 


1 
1 



77 
17 
55 
8 
78 
17 
41 
13 



343.5 
519.8 
159.9 
256.7 
132.4 
165.3 
132.8 
110.8 
205.6 
89.2 



151.0 
221.5 
166.0 
291.0 

74.0 
144.0 
129.0 
104.0 
131.0 

82.0 



Dist Totals Fel 117 5 84 42 17 4 269 165.7 132.0 

% of Total 43.5% 1.9% 31.2% 15.6% 6.3% 1.5% 100.0% 

Mis 23 9 12 14 1 4 63 204.6 118.0 

% of Total 36.5% 14.3% 19.0% 22.2% 1.6% 6.3% 100.0% 



123 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 









Age 


i of Pendir 


g Cases (L 


>ays) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-40 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 25 






















Burke 


Fel 


149 


13 


35 


54 


46 


10 


307 


195.6 


112.0 




Mis 


119 


27 


34 


40 


17 


19 


256 


190.9 


102.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


117 


14 


14 


lb 


26 


1 


188 


138.7 


48.0 




Mis 


117 


36 


16 


13 


5 





187 


81.6 


69.0 


Catawba 


Fel 


126 


103 


80 


46 


9 





364 


116.4 


98.0 




Mis 


184 


47 


48 


54 


26 


1 


360 


131.1 


90.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


392 


130 


129 


116 


81 


11 


859 


149.6 


98.0 


% of Total 




45.6% 


15.1% 


15.0% 


13.5% 


9.4% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


420 


110 


98 


107 


48 


20 


803 


138.6 


89.0 


% of Total 




52.3% 


13.7% 


12.2% 


13.3% 


6.0% 


2.5% 


100.0% 






District 26 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


774 


176 


332 


166 


49 


11 


1,508 


116.4 


82.5 


% of Total 




51.3% 


11.7% 


22.0% 


11.0% 


3.2% 


0.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


308 


84 


142 


78 


19 


10 


641 


130.0 


98.0 


% of Total 




48.0% 


13.1% 


22.2% 


12.2% 


3.0% 


1.6% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


211 


35 


12 


12 


4 


1 


275 


75.7 


27.0 


% of Total 




76.7% 


12.7% 


4.4% 


4.4% 


1.5% 


0.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


182 


19 


24 


28 


16 


12 


281 


132.4 


34.0 


% of Total 




64.8% 


6.8% 


8.5% 


10.0% 


5.7% 


4.3% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


167 


10 


17 


14 


3 


2 


213 


83.6 


42.0 




Mis 


65 


11 


12 


31 


1 





120 


113.9 


84.5 


Lincoln 


Fel 


80 


3 


17 


20 


5 





125 


105.8 


53.0 




Mis 


26 


6 


9 


9 


1 


1 


52 


130.5 


92.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


247 


13 


34 


34 


8 


2 


338 


91.8 


46.0 


% of Total 




73.1% 


3.8% 


10.1% 


10.1% 


2.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 


118.9 


87 




Mis 


91 


17 


21 


40 


2 


1 


172 






% of Total 




52.9% 


9.9% 


12.2% 


23.3% 


1.2% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


338 


34 


53 


15 


3 


16 


459 


96.6 


63.0 


% of Total 




73.6% 


7.4% 


11.5% 


3.3% 


0.7% 


3.5% 


100.0% 








Mis 


28 


5 


3 


9 


1 





46 


106.5 


61.5 


% of Total 




60.9% 


10.9% 


6.5% 


19.6% 


2.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fel 


64 


36 


3 


11 


1 





115 


89.3 


63.0 




Mis 


35 


10 


4 


16 


1 





66 


118.4 


82.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


23 





10 


1 


5 





39 


132.8 


75.0 




Mis 


17 


4 


3 


6 


2 





32 


115.3 


63.0 


Polk 


Fel 


14 


1 


6 


9 


11 





41 


228.2 


154.0 




Mis 


6 


8 


5 


4 


1 


3 


27 


285.6 


119.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


77 


29 


1 1 


20 


17 


3 


157 


148.2 


97.0 




Mis 


61 


9 


11 


9 


6 


7 


103 


160.4 


67.0 


Transylvania 


Fel 


6 


14 


9 


8 


13 


13 


63 


416.9 


193.0 




Mis 


1 


3 


1 


4 


1 


4 


14 


376.7 


308.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


184 


80 


39 


49 


47 


16 


415 


179.1 


97.0 


% of Total 




44.3% 


19.3% 


9.4% 


11.8% 


11.3% 


3.9% 


100.0% 








Mis 


120 


34 


24 


39 


11 


14 


242 


169.5 


94.0 


% of Total 




49.6% 


14.0% 


9.9% 


16.1% 


4.5% 


5.8% 


100.0% 







124 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 











Age 


s of Penan 


ig Cases ( 


i)ays) 




Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 


. 30 






















Cherokee 




Fel 





12 


4 


24 


33 


6 


79 


382.2 


297.0 






Mis 





3 


11 


39 


25 


2 


80 


336.8 


249.0 


Clay 




Fel 


7 


1 


2 


6 


20 





36 


383.5 


441.0 






Mis 


1 











1 





2 


253.0 


253.0 


Graham 




Fel 


10 











2 


4 


16 


270.4 


84.0 






Mis 


6 


3 





4 


1 


5 


19 


337.1 


294.0 


Haywood 




Fel 


37 


6 


18 


53 


14 


43 


171 


367.9 


299.0 






Mis 


48 


5 


18 


15 


5 





91 


118.3 


68.0 


Jackson 




Fel 


30 





4 


2 





9 


45 


201.4 


39.0 






Mis 


8 


3 


1 


3 





1 


16 


176.4 


100.5 


Macon 




Fel 


6 


4 


4 


13 


10 


1 


38 


275.2 


245.0 






Mis 


8 





8 


6 


4 


3 


29 


334.1 


179.0 


Swain 




Fel 


10 


34 


2 


6 


5 





57 


154.8 


105.0 






Mis 


4 


2 


2 


6 


8 





22 


277.0 


208.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


100 


57 


34 


104 


84 


63 


442 


315.8 


248.5 


% of 


Total 




22 . 6% 


12.9% 


7.7% 


23.5% 


19.0% 


14.3% 


100.0% 










Mis 


75 


16 


40 


73 


44 


11 


259 


244.1 


179.0 


7, of 


Total 




29.0% 


6.2% 


15.4% 


28 . 2% 


17.0% 


4.2% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


8,738 


1,561 


2,163 


1,973 


1,096 


581 


16,112 


156.3 


83.0 


% of 


Total 




54.2% 


9.7% 


13.4% 


12.2% 


6.8% 


3.6% 


100.0% 










Mis 


5,273 


894 


1,094 


1,152 


546 


194 


9,153 


133.2 


74.0 


% of 


Total 




57.6% 


9.8% 


12.0% 


12.6% 


6.0% 


2.1% 


100.0% 







125 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 











Ayes 


of Dispost 


d Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 


1 






















Camden 




Fel 


7 


23 











2 


32 


179.3 


115.0 






Mis 


32 


16 


11 


12 








71 


111.2 


98.0 


Chowan 




Fel 


19 


3 


5 


2 


1 


26 


5b 


466.2 


199.0 






Mis 


144 


16 


8 


10 


6 


4 


188 


89.5 


41.5 


Currituck 


Fel 


23 


lb 


27 


7 


3 





76 


128.0 


108.5 






Mis 


81 


14 


15 


13 


3 





126 


93.7 


71.5 


Dare 




Fel 


79 


36 


21 


42 


14 


2 


194 


155.4 


98.5 






Mis 


116 


31 


68 


50 


9 





274 


134.0 


110.0 


Gates 




Fel 


11 


5 


4 


18 





1 


39 


210.8 


160.0 






Mis 


18 


19 


7 


5 








49 


101.4 


97.0 


Pasquotank 


Fel 


131 


17 


20 


12 


13 


13 


206 


196.2 


67.0 






Mis 


407 


63 


bl 


60 


14 





605 


84.8 


63.0 


Perquimans 


Fel 


1 J 


3 


2 b 


7 


1 





50 


146.3 


156.0 






Mis 


52 


lb 


22 


10 


3 





103 


108.3 


90.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


283 


103 


103 


88 


32 


44 


653 


195.5 


105.0 


% of 


Total 




43.3% 


15.8% 


15.8% 


13.5% 


4.9% 


6.7% 


100.0% 










Mis 


850 


175 


192 


160 


35 


4 


1,416 


99.4 


73.0 


% of 


Total 




60.0% 


12.4% 


13.6% 


11.3% 


2.5% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 


2 






















Beaufort 




Fel 


228 


6 


47 


40 


16 


3 


340 


109.4 


77.5 






Mis 


164 


2/ 


23 


7 


6 





227 


77.9 


54.0 


Hyde 




Fel 


16 


3 


5 


10 








34 


130.0 


92.0 






Mis 


15 


7 


3 


4 





i) 


29 


91.4 


89.0 


Martin 




Fel 


86 


12 


10 


1 1 








119 


75.0 


57.0 






Mis 


45 


4 


10 


1 








60 


63.2 


47.0 


Tyrrell 




Fel 


18 








6 








24 


89.6 


49.0 






Mis 


21 


3 


4 


7 


2 





37 


122.7 


67.0 


Washington 


Fel 


3 5 


i) 


8 


10 








53 


98.7 


37.0 






Mis 


62 


6 


14 


7 








89 


80.7 


63.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


383 


21 


70 


77 


16 


3 


570 


101.6 


73.0 


% of 


Total 




67.2% 


3.7% 


12.3% 


13.5% 


2.8% 


0.5% 


100.0% 










Mis 


307 


47 


54 


26 


8 





442 


81.1 


56.0 


% of 


Total 




69 . 5% 


10.6% 


12.2% 


5.9% 


1.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 


3 






















Carteret 




Fel 


175 


50 


34 


4': 


49 





352 


152.9 


91.0 






Mis 


55 


14 


23 


19 








111 


100.0 


94.0 


Craven 




Fel 


222 


88 


80 


103 


18 


4 


515 


132.3 


94.0 






Mis 


239 


3 5 


34 


23 


6 





337 


78.6 


55.0 


Pamlico 




Fel 


22 


4 


13 





3 


1 


43 


139.0 


77.0 






Mis 


21 


3 


4 


1 








29 


78.0 


59.0 


Pitt 




Fel 


397 


118 


189 


138 


20 


III 


872 


127.5 


99.5 






Mis 


523 


87 


103 


57 


12 


2 


784 


84.5 


62.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


816 


260 


316 


285 


90 


15 


1,782 


134.2 


35.0 


% of 


Total 




45.8% 


14.6% 


17.7% 


16.0% 


5.1% 


0.8% 


100.0% 










Mis 


838 


139 


164 


100 


18 


2 


1,261 


84.1 


62.0 


% of 


Total 




66.5% 


11.0% 


13.0% 


7.9% 


1.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 


4 






















Duplin 




Fel 


386 


24 


17 


22 








449 


49.8 


24.0 






Mis 


67 


7 


3 


1 


i) 





78 


41.5 


22.0 


Jones 




Fel 


71 





5 


5 








81 


35.0 


10.0 






Mis 


17 





1 





I 





19 


80.2 


54.0 


Onslow 




Fel 


732 


34 


59 


83 








908 


62.3 


39.0 






Mis 


213 


9 


8 


3 








233 


46.2 


44.0 


Sampson 




Fel 


236 


19 


43 











298 


49.2 


25.5 






Mis 


47 


1 


1 


1 








50 


43.3 


33.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


1,425 


77 


124 


110 








1,736 


55.5 


35.0 


% of 


Total 




82.1% 


4.4% 


7.1% 


6.3% 


0.0% 


0.0% 


100.0% 










Mis 


344 


17 


13 


5 


1 





380 


46.5 


38.5 


% of 


Total 




90.5% 


4.5% 


3.4% 


1.3% 


0.3% 


0.0% 


100.0% 







126 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 









Ages 


of Dispose 


d (.uses (1 


,>ays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 5 






















New Hanover 


Fel 


1,064 


200 


484 


208 


13 


3 


1,972 


104.5 


84.0 




Mis 


513 


71 


83 


103 


6 





776 


82.4 


50.0 


Pender 


Fel 


43 


6 


11 


5 








65 


77.9 


46.0 




Mis 


34 


9 


9 


2 








54 


77.1 


56.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


1,107 


206 


495 


213 


13 


3 


2,037 


103.7 


84.0 


% of Total 




54.3% 


10.1% 


24.3% 


10.5% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


547 


80 


92 


105 


6 





830 


82.0 


51.0 


% of Total 




65.9% 


9.6% 


11.1% 


12.7% 


0.7% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 6 






















Bertie 


Fel 


72 


26 


14 


9 


2 





123 


88.3 


63.0 




Mis 


59 


10 


8 


15 


2 





94 


109.3 


71.0 


Halifax 


Fel 


203 


4 


29 


54 


6 


1 


297 


90.6 


43.0 




Mis 


216 


20 


24 


23 


4 


2 


289 


75.8 


39.0 


Hertford 


Fel 


94 


10 


6 


41 


1 





152 


116.6 


60.0 




Mis 


70 


11 


12 


29 


6 





128 


123.0 


80.5 


Northampton 


Fel 


56 


18 


20 


3 


1 





98 


79.4 


77.0 




Mis 


47 


13 


8 


7 


1 


1 


77 


103.3 


82.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


425 


58 


69 


107 


10 


1 


670 


94.4 


56.0 


% of Total 




63.4% 


0.0% 


10.3% 


16.0% 


1.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


392 


54 


52 


74 


13 


3 


588 


95.0 


60.0 


% of Total 




66.7% 


9.2% 


8.8% 


12.6% 


2.2% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 7 






















Edgecombe 


Fel 


265 


rz 


45 


10 


5 





357 


68.8 


55.0 




Mis 


159 


10 


24 


4 


3 





200 


67.2 


50.5 


Nash 


Fel 


359 


22 


13 


15 


3 





412 


59.2 


43.0 




Mis 


334 


22 


28 


7 


2 





393 


55.6 


32.0 


Wilson 


Fel 


372 


35 


16 


21 


7 


1 


452 


58.9 


38.0 




Mis 


112 


41 


15 


10 


10 





188 


95.8 


72.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


996 


89 


74 


46 


15 


1 


1,221 


61.9 


43.0 


% of Total 




81.6% 


7.3% 


6.1% 


3.8% 


1.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


605 


73 


67 


21 


15 





781 


68.2 


45.0 


% of Total 




77.5% 


9.3% 


8.6% 


2.7% 


1.9% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 8 






















Greene 


Fel 


29 


23 


4 


1 


3 





60 


77.6 


91.0 




Mis 


56 


5 


8 


8 


1 





78 


82.5 


52.0 


Lenoir 


Fel 


204 


59 


45 


16 


10 





334 


90.1 


59.0 




Mis 


283 


49 


72 


37 


2 





443 


84.6 


64.0 


Wayne 


Fel 


341 


106 


110 


64 


13 


2 


636 


100.9 


86.0 




Mis 


429 


72 


60 


88 


9 


1 


659 


86.3 


59.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


574 


188 


159 


81 


26 


2 


1,030 


96.1 


77.5 


% of Total 




55.7% 


18.3% 


15.4% 


7.9% 


2.5% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


768 


126 


140 


133 


12 


1 


1,180 


85.4 


62.0 


% of Total 




65.1% 


10.7% 


11.9% 


11.3% 


1.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 9 






















Franklin 


Fel 


103 


36 


31 


27 


2 


6 


205 


119.1 


87.0 




Mis 


82 


29 


8 


18 


3 


1 


141 


97.5 


71.0 


Granville 


Fel 


137 


27 


45 


60 


10 


21 


300 


207.6 


101.0 




Mis 


70 


25 


46 


61 


10 


3 


215 


176.3 


144.0 


Person 


Fel 


65 


15 


46 


45 


8 


1 


180 


152.6 


131.0 




Mis 


121 


67 


32 


66 


49 


4 


339 


195.8 


105.0 


Vance 


Fel 


201 


36 


67 


76 


13 


3 


396 


123.5 


89.0 




Mis 


176 


33 


51 


54 


24 





338 


125.6 


85.0 


Warren 


Fel 


22 


3 


10 


14 


5 


12 


66 


281.9 


168.5 




Mis 


34 


6 


12 


23 


8 


6 


89 


217.3 


147.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


528 


117 


199 


222 


38 


43 


1,147 


158.4 


97.0 


% of Total 




46.0% 


10.2% 


17.3% 


19.4% 


3.3% 


3.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


483 


160 


149 


222 


94 


14 


1,122 


160.3 


101.0 


% of Total 




43.0% 


14.3% 


13.3% 


19.8% 


8.4% 


1.2% 


100.0% 







127 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 



0-90 



Ages oT Disposed Cases (Days) 



91-120 121-180 



181-365 366-730 



>730 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean 

Age 



Median 
Age 



District 10 



Wake 


Fel 


1,082 


392 


621 


856 


273 


41 


3,265 


179.3 


134.0 


% of Total 




33.1% 


12.0% 


19.0% 


26.2% 


8.4% 


1.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


1,115 


167 


173 


155 


53 


1 


1,664 


93.9 


62.0 


% of Total 




67.0% 


10.0% 


10.4% 


9.3% 


3.2% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 11 






















Harnett 


Fel 


113 


4 


9 


10 








136 


68.8 


52.5 




Mis 


75 


8 


5 


1 


4 





93 


68.6 


49.0 


Johnston 


Fel 


191 


30 


13 


11 


2 





247 


65.8 


55.0 




Mis 


223 


21 


14 


8 


1 





267 


56.2 


41.0 


Lee 


Fel 


180 


27 


15 


2 


1 





225 


68.5 


62.0 




Mis 


153 


10 


6 


6 


1 





176 


53.8 


32.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


484 


61 


37 


23 


3 





608 


67.4 


56.0 


% of Total 




79.6% 


10.0% 


6.1% 


3.8% 


0.5% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


451 


39 


25 


15 


6 





536 


57.5 


40.0 


% of Total 




84.1% 


7.3% 


4.7% 


2.8% 


1.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 12 






















Cumberland 


Fel 


412 


185 


200 


158 


48 


13 


1,016 


140.1 


105.0 




Mis 


352 


134 


66 


27 


16 


1 


596 


80.2 


53.5 


Hoke 


Fel 


85 


5 


12 


6 


1 





109 


63.3 


51.0 




Mis 


40 


14 


13 


3 








70 


84.5 


85.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


497 


190 


212 


164 


49 


13 


1,125 


132.7 


99.0 


% of Total 




44.2% 


16.9% 


18.8% 


14.6% 


4.4% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


392 


148 


79 


30 


16 


1 


666 


80.7 


55.0 


% of Total 




58 . 9% 


22.2% 


11.9% 


4.5% 


2.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 13 






















Bladen 


Fel 


34 


32 


22 


11 








99 


110.4 


98.0 




Mis 


54 


9 


8 


18 


3 


1 


93 


124.2 


73.0 


Brunswick 


Fel 


33 


50 


90 


47 


5 


9 


234 


184.8 


128.0 




Mis 


41 


3 


21 


9 


6 





80 


122.9 


78.0 


Columbus 


Fel 


66 


20 


40 


59 


4 


3 


192 


160.9 


125.5 




Mis 


79 


12 


49 


35 


2 





177 


119.7 


109.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


133 


102 


152 


117 


9 


12 


525 


162.0 


127.0 


% of Total 




25.3% 


19.4% 


29.0% 


22.3% 


1.7% 


2.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


174 


24 


78 


62 


11 


1 


350 


121.6 


91.5 


% of Total 




49.7% 


6.9% 


22.3% 


17.7% 


3.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 14 






















Durham 


Fel 


710 


161 


229 


249 


93 


27 


1,469 


146.3 


93.0 


% of Total 




48 . 3% 


11.0% 


15.6% 


17.0% 


6.3% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


264 


51 


56 


50 


25 


8 


454 


126.9 


75.5 


% of Total 




58.1% 


11.2% 


12.3% 


11.0% 


5.5% 


1.8% 


100.0% 






District 15A 






















Alamance 


Fel 


574 


151 


188 


89 





1 


1,003 


97.0 


81.0 


% of Total 




57.2% 


15.1% 


18.7% 


8.9% 


0.0% 


0.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


342 


222 


40 


54 


4 


1 


663 


91.8 


90.0 


% of Total 




51.6% 


33.5% 


6.0% 


8.1% 


0.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 15B 























Chatham 
Orange 



Fel 
Mis 
Fel 
Mis 



43 

28 

212 

42 



18 

3 

66 

11 



31 
2 

70 
5 



5 

4 

62 

15 



98 

38 

410 

73 



110.5 
77.3 
99.2 
94.9 



103.5 
60.5 
84.0 
66.0 



Dist Totals 
% of Total 

% of Total 



Fel 



Mis 



255 
50.2% 

70 
63.1% 



84 
16.5% 

14 
12.6% 



101 
19.9% 
7 
6.3% 



67 
13.2% 

19 
17.1% 




0.0% 

1 
0.9% 



1 
0.2% 


0.0% 



508 
100.0% 

111 
100.0% 



101.4 



89.5 



61.0 



128 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 









Ages 


of Dispost 


d Cases (1 


Jays) 






Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 16 
























Robeson 


Fel 


746 


203 


112 


72 


14 







1,147 


84.8 


73.0 




Mis 


426 


74 


64 


72 


9 




7 


652 


99.5 


70.5 


Scotland 


Fel 


128 


40 


106 


104 


34 




5 


417 


177.0 


155.0 




Mis 


99 


35 


71 


94 


33 




5 


337 


196.8 


155.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


874 


243 


218 


176 


48 




5 


1,564 


109.4 


110.6 


% of Total 




55.9% 


15.5% 


13.9% 


11.3% 


3.1% 





.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


525 


109 


135 


166 


42 




12 


989 


132.6 


82.0 


% of Total 




53.1% 


11.0% 


13.7% 


16.8% 


4.2% 


1 


.2% 


100.0% 






District 17A 
























Caswell 


Fel 


96 


2 


11 


5 










114 


46.9 


22.0 




Mis 


98 


6 


7 


3 


2 







116 


60.7 


47.5 


Rockingham 


Fel 


467 


65 


54 


34 


5 




1 


626 


70.8 


51.0 




Mis 


489 


69 


56 


32 


4 







650 


63.3 


45.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


563 


67 


65 


39 


5 




1 


740 


67.1 


50.0 


% of Total 




76.1% 


9.1% 


8.8% 


5.3% 


0.7% 





.1% 


100.0% 








Mis 


587 


75 


63 


35 


6 







766 


62.9 


47.0 


% of Total 




76.6% 


9.8% 


8.2% 


4.6% 


0.8% 





.0% 


100.0% 






District 17B 
























Stokes 


Fel 


146 


38 


57 


L7 


1 







259 


94.1 


84.0 




Mis 


116 


25 


40 


19 


1 







201 


100.3 


65.0 


Surry 


Fel 


232 


67 


86 


76 


1 







462 


110.7 


88.5 




Mis 


326 


59 


60 


36 


4 







485 


83.1 


63.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


378 


105 


143 


93 


2 







721 


104.8 


84.0 


% of Total 




52.4% 


14.6% 


19.8% 


12.9% 


0.3% 





.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


442 


84 


100 


55 


5 







686 


88.1 


63.0 


% of Total 




64.4% 


12.2% 


14.6% 


8.0% 


0.7% 





.0% 


100.0% 






District 18 
























Guilford 


Fel 


1,423 


367 


343 


476 


317 




70 


2,996 


168.8 


94.0 


% of Total 




47.5% 


12.2% 


11.4% 


15.9% 


10.6% 


2 


.3% 


100.0% 








Mis 


460 


70 


139 


74 


29 




15 


787 


118.5 


73.0 


% of Total 




58.4% 


8.9% 


17.7% 


9.4% 


3.7% 


1 


.9% 


100.0% 






District 19A 
























Cabarrus 


Fel 


362 


99 


98 


60 


7 







626 


98.4 


83.0 




Mis 


340 


164 


158 


100 


13 




1 


776 


120.6 


98.0 


Rowan 


Fel 


468 


121 


70 


55 


7 







721 


87.4 


72.0 




Mis 


349 


65 


74 


58 


13 




1 


560 


101.4 


70.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


830 


220 


168 


115 


14 







1,347 


92.5 


76.0 


% of Total 




61.6% 


16.3% 


12.5% 


8.5% 


1.0% 





.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


689 


229 


232 


158 


26 




2 


1,336 


112.5 


88.0 


% of Total 




51.6% 


17.1% 


17.4% 


11.8% 


1.9% 





. 1% 


100.0% 






District 19B 
























Montgomery 


Fel 


98 


35 


42 


32 


3 




2 


212 


120.1 


94.0 




Mis 


171 


59 


46 


73 


2 




2 


353 


119.7 


92.0 


Randolph 


Fel 


152 


121 


111 


136 


40 




6 


566 


175.2 


126.0 




Mis 


604 


167 


160 


152 


28 




2 


1,113 


106.7 


83.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


250 


156 


153 


168 


43 




8 


778 


160.2 


115.0 


% of Total 




32.1% 


20.1% 


19.7% 


21.6% 


5.5% 


1 


.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


775 


226 


206 


225 


30 




4 


1,466 


109.8 


86.0 


% of Total 




52.9% 


15.4% 


14.1% 


15.3% 


2.0% 





.3% 


100.0% 







129 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 











Ages 


of Dispose 


d Cases (1 


)ays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-«J0 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 


20 






















Anson 




Fel 


86 


21 


24 


25 


9 





165 


124.3 


87.0 






Mis 


102 


17 


41 


36 


8 


1 


205 


124.7 


102.0 


Moore 




Fel 


378 


41 


79 


79 


5 


1 


583 


92.1 


56.0 






Mis 


321 


25 


35 


12 


4 





397 


62.7 


54.0 


Richmond 




Fel 


303 


119 


91 


33 


23 


2 


571 


103.7 


85.0 






Mis 


207 


32 


64 


40 


25 


2 


370 


121.8 


73.0 


Stanly 




Fel 


278 


86 


35 


15 





2 


416 


76.9 


57.0 






Mis 


222 


11 


23 


18 


3 





277 


69.2 


51.0 


Union 




Fel 


490 


29 


51 


21 


12 


1 


604 


77.0 


55.0 






Mis 


363 


36 


62 


44 


11 


1 


517 


87.9 


55.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


1,535 


296 


280 


173 


49 


6 


2,339 


90.6 


60.0 


% of 


Total 




65.6% 


12.7% 


12.0% 


7.4% 


2.1% 


0.3% 


100.0% 










Mis 


1,215 


121 


225 


150 


51 


4 


1,766 


90.7 


56.0 


% of 


Total 




68.8% 


6.9% 


12.7% 


8.5% 


2.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 


21 






















Forsyth 




Fel 


1,591 


157 


102 


82 


11 





1,943 


66.5 


53.0 


% of 


Total 




81.9% 


8.1% 


5.2% 


4.2% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 










Mis 


1,853 


79 


69 


80 


5 





2,086 


52.2 


41.0 


% of 


Total 




88 . 8% 


3.8% 


3.3% 


3.8% 


0.2% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 


22 






















Alexander 


Fel 


33 


11 


32 


4 


6 





86 


132.2 


106.0 






Mis 


71 


31 


27 


9 








138 


86.8 


75.0 


Davidson 




Fel 


162 


26 


47 


53 


21 


5 


314 


149.6 


82.5 






Mis 


374 


44 


43 


35 


10 


2 


508 


77.9 


46.0 


Davie 




Fel 


8 


6 


9 


35 


1 





59 


182.1 


196.0 






Mis 


90 


17 


30 


22 


1 





160 


109.2 


83.0 


Iredell 




Fel 


111 


30 


149 


116 


8 


8 


422 


168.7 


146.0 






Mis 


525 


64 


57 


97 


6 





749 


84.9 


49.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


314 


73 


237 


208 


36 


13 


881 


159.2 


40.0 


% of 


Total 




35.6% 


8.3% 


26 . 9% 


23.6% 


4.1% 


1.5% 


100.0% 










Mis 


1,060 


156 


157 


163 


17 


2 


1,555 


85.3 


53.0 


% of 


Total 




68 . 2% 


10.0% 


10.1% 


10.5% 


1.1% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 


23 






















Alleghan 


y 


Fel 


5 





9 


4 


13 


1 


32 


320.9 


278.0 






Mis 


10 


1 


6 


4 








21 


114.0 


98.0 


Ashe 




Fel 


53 


2 


6 


10 


3 


1 


75 


130.9 


66.0 






Mis 


8 


7 


4 


21 


1 


6 


47 


308.9 


201.0 


Wilkes 




Fel 


69 


24 


18 


59 


14 


2 


186 


170.4 


119.0 






Mis 


173 


31 


45 


49 


11 


13 


322 


156.4 


84.0 


Yadkin 




Fel 


49 


44 


16 


48 


2 


5 


164 


160.9 


113.0 






Mis 


91 


16 


19 


25 


5 


1 


157 


111.9 


75.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


176 


70 


49 


121 


32 


9 


457 


171.1 


146.0 


% of 


Total 




38.5% 


15.3% 


10.7% 


26.5% 


7.0% 


2.0% 


100.0% 










Mis 


282 


55 


74 


99 


17 


20 


547 


155.1 


87.0 


% of 


Total 




51.6% 


10.1% 


13.5% 


18.1% 


3.1% 


3.7% 


100.0% 






District 


24 






















Avery 




Fel 


',H 





6 


H 


1 


2 


75 


80.1 


8.0 






Mis 


15 





5 


8 








28 


116.6 


71.0 


Madison 




Fel 


18 


7 


15 


12 


8 


5 


65 


222.7 


129.0 






Mis 


8 





3 


3 


5 


2 


21 


286.6 


161.0 


Mitchell 




Fel 


55 


6 


7 


9 


7 


1 


85 


129.6 


63.0 






Mis 


24 





8 


12 


l r > 





59 


209.7 


167.0 


Watauga 




Fel 


102 


A] 


68 


35 


12 





258 


129.3 


111.0 






Mis 


44 


21 


I 1 


1 / 








99 


102.2 


98.0 


Yancey 




Fel 


24 


3 


4 


8 


5 





44 


155.4 


84.0 






Mis 


4 





3 


2 


1 





10 


154.5 


125.5 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


257 


57 


100 


72 


33 


8 


527 


136.1 


99.0 


% of 


Total 




48.8% 


10.8% 


19.0% 


13.7% 


6.3% 


1.5% 


100.0% 










Mis 


95 


21 


36 


42 


21 


2 


217 


153.6 


112.0 


7: Of 


T o t a 1 




43.8% 


9.7% 


16.6% 


19.4% 


9.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 







130 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 









Ages 


of Dispose 


d Cases (1 


)ays) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 25 






















Burke 


Fel 


78 


57 


36 


94 


23 


6 


294 


195.1 


142.0 




Mis 


111 


44 


96 


128 


20 


3 


402 


167.2 


146.0 


Caldwell 


Fel 


84 


66 


211 


112 


27 


7 


507 


178.8 


155.0 




Mis 


161 


57 


104 


121 


14 





457 


145.1 


126.0 


Catawba 


Fel 


312 


143 


187 


183 


55 


10 


890 


153.2 


116.0 




Mis 


301 


97 


150 


99 


12 


5 


664 


122.1 


98.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


474 


266 


434 


389 


105 


23 


1,691 


168.2 


140.0 


% of Total 




28.0% 


15.7% 


25.7% 


23.0% 


6.2% 


1.4% 


100.0% 








Mis 


573 


198 


350 


348 


46 


8 


1,523 


140.9 


119.0 


% of Total 




37.6% 


13.0% 


23.0% 


22.8% 


3.0% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 26 






















Mecklenburg 


Fel 


1,107 


595 


617 


437 


153 


52 


2,961 


152.9 


106.0 


% of Total 




37.4% 


20.1% 


20.8% 


14.8% 


5.2% 


1.8% 


100.0% 








Mis 


709 


175 


275 


255 


36 


6 


1,456 


122.2 


95.0 


% of Total 




48.7% 


12.0% 


18.9% 


17.5% 


2.5% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 27A 






















Gaston 


Fel 


731 


101 


124 


78 


9 


2 


1,045 


77.3 


57.0 


% of Total 




70.0% 


9.7% 


11.9% 


7.5% 


0.9% 


0.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


581 


69 


81 


55 


4 


1 


791 


74.6 


53.0 


% of Total 




73.5% 


8.7% 


10.2% 


7.0% 


0.5% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 27B 






















Cleveland 


Fel 


295 


133 


152 


97 


17 





694 


117.9 


100.0 




Mis 


234 


42 


52 


54 


7 


2 


391 


102.5 


71.0 


Lincoln 


Fel 


167 


40 


30 


18 


3 





258 


90.7 


81.0 




Mis 


118 


33 


15 


24 


4 





194 


99.4 


76.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


462 


173 


182 


115 


20 





952 


110.6 


94.5 


% of Total 




48.5% 


18.2% 


19.1% 


12.1% 


2.1% 


0.0% 


100.0% 








Mis 


352 


75 


67 


78 


11 


2 


585 


101.5 


74.0 


% of Total 




60.2% 


12.8% 


11.5% 


13.3% 


1.9% 


0.3% 


100.0% 






District 28 






















Buncombe 


Fel 


455 


182 


127 


85 


41 


11 


901 


127.5 


90.0 


% of Total 




50 . 5% 


20.2% 


14.1% 


9.4% 


4.6% 


1.2% 


100.0% 








Mis 


204 


34 


29 


20 


8 


3 


298 


95.9 


61.0 


% of Total 




68 . 5% 


11.4% 


9.7% 


6.7% 


2.7% 


1.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 






















Henderson 


Fel 


277 


4U 


62 


3 5 


16 


11 


441 


146.8 


67.0 




Mis 


165 


35 


18 


19 


4 


9 


250 


133.3 


72.0 


McDowell 


Fel 


184 


25 


61 


18 


7 


1 


296 


97.3 


68.0 




Mis 


69 


14 


19 


21 


1 





124 


102.6 


67.0 


Polk 


Fel 


18 


1 


17 


27 


7 





70 


178.0 


126.0 




Mis 


16 


3 


12 


14 


3 





48 


159.2 


146.0 


Rutherford 


Fel 


161 


53 


58 


120 


33 


4 


429 


156.1 


121.0 




Mis 


121 


38 


67 


54 


25 





305 


146.8 


115.0 


Transylvania 


Fel 


34 


38 


13 


40 


5 


7 


137 


190.8 


117.0 




Mis 


25 


21 


4 


32 


8 


3 


93 


196.6 


127.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


674 


157 


211 


240 


68 


23 


1,373 


145.0 


92.0 


% of Total 




49.1% 


11.4% 


15.4% 


17.5% 


5.0% 


1.7% 


100.0% 








Mis 


396 


111 


120 


140 


41 


12 


820 


142.4 


96.0 


% of Total 




48 . 3% 


13.5% 


14.6% 


17.1% 


5.0% 


1.5% 


100.0% 







131 



AGES OF FELONY (FEL) AND MISDEMEANOR (MIS) 
CASES DISPOSED IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 











Ages 


of Dispose 


d Cases ( 


Days) 




Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 


30 






















Cherokee 




Fel 


L8 


9 


4 


3 


6 





40 


167.2 


92.0 






Mis 





L3 


4 


3 








20 


142.4 


92.0 


Clay 




Fel 


21 


18 


16 


6 


1 





62 


120.5 


108.0 






Mis 


3 


4 


1 











8 


86.1 


104.0 


Graham 




Fel 


8 


10 


10 


41 


16 





85 


298.6 


350.0 






Mis 


32 


4 


19 


19 


21 


1 


96 


226.5 


141.0 


Haywood 




Fel 


121 


32 


8 7 


114 


32 


8 


394 


194.7 


154.0 






Mis 


68 


35 


27 


49 


23 


1 


203 


176.3 


119.0 


Jackson 




Fel 


34 


5 


42 


16 


4 





101 


127.8 


134.0 






Mis 


15 


8 


13 


7 


2 





45 


130.4 


120.0 


Macon 




Fel 


37 


15 


7 


25 


5 


4 


93 


164.4 


111.0 






Mis 


18 


3 


4 


22 


9 





56 


193.2 


191.0 


Swain 




Fel 


8 


6 


26 


16 


6 





62 


183.5 


158.0 






Mis 


18 


5 


4 


19 


6 





52 


176.1 


166.0 


Dist Totals 


Fel 


247 


95 


192 


221 


70 


12 


837 


186.2 


147.0 


% of 


Total 




29.5% 


11.4% 


22.9% 


26.4% 


8.4% 


1.4% 


100.0% 










Mis 


154 


72 


72 


119 


61 


2 


480 


181.1 


127.0 


% of 


Total 




32.1% 


15.0% 


15.0% 


24.8% 


12.7% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


Fel 


22,613 


5,640 


6,894 


6,082 


1,723 


450 


43,402 


125.6 


86.0 


% of 


Total 




52.1% 


13.0% 


15.9% 


14.0% 


4.0% 


1.0% 


100.0% 










Mis 


18,894 


3,495 


3,811 


3,493 


774 


131 


30,598 


100.6 


67.0 


% of 


Total 




61.7% 


11.4% 


12.5% 


11.4% 


2.5% 


0.4% 


100.0% 







132 



PART IV, Section 2 



District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The District Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1985-86 of cases filed and 
disposed of in the State's district courts, including those 
handled by magistrates. 

When the plaintiff in a civil case requests, and the amount 
in controversy does not exceed $1,500, the case may be 
classified as a "small claim" civil action and assigned to a 
magistrate for hearing. Magistrates also have certain crimi- 
nal case jurisdiction. They may accept written appearance 
and waiver of trial, with plea of guilty, and enter judgment in 
accord with the schedule of fines promulgated by chief dis- 
trict judges for traffic offenses; and effective July 1, 1984, for 
boating, hunting and fishing offenses. Also, magistrates may 
accept guilty pleas in other misdemeanor cases where the 
sentence cannot be in excess of 30 days or $50 fine; and may 
hear and enter judgment in worthless check cases where the 
amount involved is $500 or less, and any prison sentence 
imposed does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in both civil and 
criminal cases are to the district court, with a district court 
judge presiding. 

This section contains data on three major case classifica- 
tions in the district court division: civil cases, juvenile pro- 
ceedings, and criminal cases. Civil cases include cases 
assigned to magistrates (small claims as defined above), 
domestic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annul- 
ments, divorces, alimony, custody and support of children), 
and "general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are classified 
in accordance with the nature of the offense or condition 
alleged in the petition which initiates the case. District court 
criminal cases are divided into motor vehicle cases (where 
the offense charged is defined in Chapter 20 of the North 
Carolina General Statutes) and non-motor criminal cases. 

Consistent with previous years, the pie charts on the fol- 
lowing page illustrate that district court criminal cases filed 
and disposed of in the 1985-86 year greatly outnumbered 
civil cases. Motor vehicle criminal cases accounted for about 
fifty percent of total filings and dispositions, and the non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases accounted for about twenty- 
seven percent. As in past years, the greatest portion of district 
court civil filings and dispositions were small claims referred 
to magistrates. 

The large volume categories of criminal motor-vehicle 
and civil magistrate cases are not reported to AOC by case 
file numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to obtain, by compu- 
ter processing, the numbers of pending cases as of a given 
date or the ages of cases pending and ages of cases at 
disposition. These categories of cases are processed through 
the courts faster than any others, thus explaining the decision 
not to allocate personnel and computer resource to reporting 
these cases in the detail that is provided for other categories 
of cases. 

Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commitment 
or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 



hospital facilities are not reported to AOC by case file 
numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: offenses 
and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudicatory hear- 
ings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital com- 
mitments and recommitments is reported in Part III, "Cost 
and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." 

Ages of district court cases pending on June 30, 1986, and 
ages of cases disposed of during 1 985-86 are reported for the 
domestic relations, general civil and magistrate appeal/ 
transfer, and criminal non- motor vehicle case categories. 

The tables for domestic relations and general civil and 
magistrate appeal/transfer cases show that the median age of 
such cases which were pending on June 30, 1986, was 143 
and 159 days, respectively, compared with a median age of 
1 49 days for domestic relations and 152 days for general civil 
and magistrate appeal/transfer cases pending on June 30, 
1985. At the time of disposition during 1985-86, the median 
age of domestic relations cases was 53 days, and the median 
age for general civil and magistrate/transfer cases was 105 
days, compared with a median age of 5 1 days at the time of 
disposition for domestic relations cases and 1 1 days for civil 
and magistrate appeal/transfer cases during 1984-85. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, the 
median age for cases pending on June 30, 1986, was 50 days 
compared with a median age of 48 days for cases pending on 
June 30, 1985. The median age of cases in this category at the 
time of disposition during 1985-86 was 28 days compared 
with a median age of 27 days at the time of disposition during 
1984-85. 

The statewide total district court filings during 1985-86, 
not including juvenile cases, and mental hospital commit- 
ment hearings, and civil license revocations, was 1,626,149 
cases, compared with 1,496,526 during 1984-85, an 
increase of 1 29,623 (8.7%). Most of this increase came in the 
motor vehicle criminal case category where filings in 1984- 
85 amounted to 771,994 cases compared to 839,168 cases 
filed in 1985-86, an increase of 67,174 (8.7%) cases. There 
was an increase of 33,305 cases (8.1%) in the non-motor 
vehicle criminal case category. 

There also was an increase (9.3%) in district court civil 
case filings, from a total of 3 1 1,998 in 1984-85 to 341,142 in 
1985-86. Most of this increase was in civil magistrate filings, 
from 204,071 cases in 1984-85 to 226,044 cases in 1985- 
86. In the domestic relations category, there was an increase 
of 2,272 cases in 1985-86 compared to the number in 
1984-85. 

The changes from year-to-year in the individual case 
categories are not unusual. The over-all trend for total district 
court case filings over the past several years has been upward. 
This upward trend is reflected in the total 1985-86 district 
court case filings. 



135 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985— June 30, 1986 

FILINGS 



Criminal Motor Vehicle 
(839,168) 




Criminal Non-Motor Vehicle 
(445,839) 



Domestic Relations 

4-0% (67,335) 



2.8% General Civil 
(47,763) 



Civil Magistrate 
(226,044) 



3.3% Civil License Revocation 
(56,172) 



DISPOSITIONS 



Criminal Motor Vehicle 
(813,632) 




Criminal Non-Motor Vehicle 

(432,206) 



Domestic Relations 

4.2% (65,827) 



2.8% 



General Civil 

(45,087) 



Civil Magistrate 

(220,474) 



Criminal cases comprise three fourths of the filings and 
dispositions in the district courts. Motor vehicle cases account 
for most of the criminal caseload, and half the total caseload. 
The 56,1 72 civil license revocations in the upper chart are the 
automatic, 10-day driver license suspensions imposed on 



drivers arrested on suspicion of impaired driving whose 
breath tests show a blood alcohol content of 0. 10 or more. 
Those cases are counted only at filing, and do not appear on 
the lower chart. 



36 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURT CASES 

1976-1985-86 



2.0 



M 
I 

L 
L 

I 
() 

N 
S 



() 
F 

C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



1.5 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 




83-84 84-85 85-86 



All civil and criminal case filings and dispositions for the last 
decade, including traffic offenses and civil magistrate cases, 
are included in the above graph. The increase in filings and 
dispositions for fiscal year 1985-86 is largely due to the 



11.4% increase in general civil case filings, the 10.8% 
increase in civil magistrate case filings, and the 8.7% 
increase in criminal motor vehicle case filings. 



137 



J 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURT CASES 

1976-1985-86 



360 





340 




320 


T 


300 


H 



280 


s 


260 


A 




\ 


240 


I) 




S 


220 


O 


200 


F 


180 


c 


160 


s 

E 


140 


s 






120 



100 

80 




Filings J*,' 



Filings 



Civil Magistrate 
Cases 



Dispositions 




Filings 



Dispositions 



Domestic and 
Other Cases 



76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



Civil magistrate filings increased 1 0.8% over last year, and tions of the trends of last year, 

other civil district filings increased 6.6%. These are continua- 



138 



CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



I 

H 
() 

U 
S 
A 
N 
I) 
S 



O 
F 

c: 

A 

s 

E 

s 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 



20 



Begin Pending 
Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



67,335 



65,827 



47,763 




45,087 



27,095 



25,587 



28,355 



GENERAL CIVIL AND 
CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
APPEALS/TRANSFERS 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



Dispositions of domestic relations cases increased 6.3% in 
1985-86 compared to 1984-85, while filings increased 3.4%. 
That left 28,355 cases pending on June 30, 1986 compared 
to 26,260 in 1985. Even though dispositions increased more 



than filings, the growth in total caseload caused a slight 
increase in the number pending at the end of the year. The 
largest increase ( 1 1 .4%) came in general civil filings. 



139 



FILINGS OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

BY TYPE OF CASE 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



50 



I 
H 

O 

I 

S 

■\ 

\ 

D 

s 



() 
F- 



C 

A 
S 

I 
s 



40 



30 



20 




URESA 



IV-D 



OTHER 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
CIVIL APPEALS/TRANSFERS 



% of Filings 



5.6<# 



10.4% 



42.5% 



38.5% 



3.0% 



"URESA" stands for the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement 
of Support Act, and refers to actions enforcing child support 
orders entered by judges in one state by the courts of another. 
"IV-D" refers to actions to collect child support owed to 



social services clients. The "Other" category includes such 
civil actions as annulment, divorce, equitable distribution of 
property, alimony, child support, and child custody. 



140 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 

Domestic Relations Cases General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



Begin 






Pending 






7/1/85 


Filings 


Total 


6 


36 


42 


50 


138 


188 


51 


81 


132 


62 


153 


215 


30 


58 


88 


116 


287 


403 


50 


72 


122 



365 



825 



1,190 



25 

150 
100 
129 

72 
305 

72 

853 



Fnd Begin K nd 

% Caseload Pending Pending % Caseload Pending 

Disposed 6/30/86 7/1/85 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/86 



59 . 5% 


17 


79.8% 


38 


75.8% 


32 


60.0% 


86 


81.8% 


16 


75.7% 


98 


59.0% 


50 



9 


8 


53 


87 


36 


74 


115 


191 


12 


13 


99 


161 


43 


36 



17 


9 


140 


68 


110 


53 


306 


181 


25 


13 


260 


159 


79 


30 



52.9% 


8 


48.6% 


72 


48.2% 


57 


59.2% 


125 


52.0% 


12 


61.2% 


101 


38.0% 


49 



71.7% 



337 



367 



570 



937 



513 



54 . 7% 



424 



District 


2 


























Beaufort 




127 


363 


490 


348 


71.0% 


142 


130 


143 


273 


161 


59.0% 


112 


Hyde 




25 


47 


72 


53 


73.6% 


19 


21 


50 


71 


45 


63.4% 


26 


Martin 




104 


317 


421 


310 


73.6% 


111 


68 


73 


141 


103 


73.0% 


38 


Tyrrell 




8 


27 


35 


25 


71.4% 


10 


8 


20 


28 


9 


32.1% 


19 


Washington 


34 


122 


156 


122 


78.2% 


34 


40 


133 


173 


144 


83.2% 


29 



District Totals 



298 



876 



1,174 



858 



73.1% 



316 



267 



419 



686 



462 



67.3% 



224 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 



451 

695 

64 

522 



519 

918 

89 

752 



970 

1,613 

153 

1,274 



800 
1,247 

121 
1,046 



82 . 5% 
77.3% 
79.1% 
82.1% 



170 

366 

32 

228 



123 288 

336 798 

15 38 

230 714 



411 

1,134 

53 

944 



299 

838 

32 

675 



72.7% 
73.9% 
60.4% 
71.5% 



112 

296 

21 

269 



District Totals 1,732 2,278 
District 4 



Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



113 

47 

1,120 

163 



New Hanover 
Pender 



735 
130 



401 

71 

1,624 

564 



District Totals 1,443 2,660 
District 5 



1,502 
273 



4,010 



514 

118 

2,744 

727 

4,103 



2,237 
403 



3,214 



357 

73 

1,476 

503 

2,409 



1,622 
290 



80.1% 



69.5% 
61.9% 
53.8% 
69.2% 



796 



157 

45 

1,268 

224 



58.7% 1,694 



72.5% 
72.0% 



615 
113 



704 1,838 



107 186 

22 82 

593 589 

92 208 

814 1,065 



1,120 1,833 
112 94 



2,542 1,844 



293 

104 

1,182 

300 

1,879 



191 

64 

473 

196 

924 



2,953 1,824 
206 122 



72.5% 



65.2% 
61.5% 
40.0% 
65.3% 

49.2% 



61.8% 
59.2% 



698 



102 

40 

709 

104 

955 



1,129 

84 



District Totals 
District 6 



865 



1,775 



Bertie 


58 


299 


Halifax 


180 


768 


Hertford 


67 


347 


Northampton 


53 


230 


District Totals 


358 


1,644 


District 7 






Edgecombe 


222 


606 


Nash 


206 


750 


Wilson 


322 


731 



2,640 



357 
948 
414 
283 

2,002 



828 

956 

1,053 



2,087 2,837 



District Totals 750 

District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



District Totals 736 2,025 2,761 



1,912 



268 
754 
301 
227 

1,550 



655 
735 
811 

2,201 



46 


146 


192 


154 


283 


688 


971 


648 


407 


1,191 


1,598 


1,170 



72.4% 



75.1% 
79.5% 
72.7% 
80.2% 

77.4% 



79.1% 
76.9% 

77.0% 

77.6% 



728 



89 
194 
113 

56 

452 



173 
221 
242 

636 



1,232 1,927 



3,159 1,946 



61.6% 1,213 



80.2% 


38 


66.7% 


323 


73.2% 


428 



27 

101 

80 

19 

227 



73 

201 
178 

49 

501 



100 


65 


302 


228 


258 


142 


68 


52 



728 



487 



1,972 



71.4% 



789 



158 


275 


433 


288 


268 


534 


802 


567 


267 


337 


604 


419 


693 


1,146 


1,839 


1,274 


13 


22 


35 


24 


238 


533 


771 


486 


379 


804 


1,183 


677 


630 


1,359 


1,989 


1,187 



65.0% 


35 


75.5% 


74 


55.0% 


116 


76.5% 


16 



66.9% 



69.3% 



68.6% 
63.0% 

57.2% 

59.7% 



241 



66, 


.5% 


145 


70. 


.7% 


235 


69 


.4% 


185 



565 



11 
285 
506 

802 



141 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Domestic Relations Cases General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 





Begin 










End 


Begin 










End 




Pending 








% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 








% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/85 


Filings 


Total 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


7/1/85 


Filings 


Total 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/86 


District 9 


























Franklin 


88 


293 


381 


271 


71.1% 


110 


58 


93 


151 


92 


60 . 9% 


59 


Granville 


114 


282 


396 


283 


71.5% 


113 


78 


124 


202 


132 


65.3% 


70 


Person 


52 


302 


354 


286 


80 . 8% 


68 


64 


96 


160 


92 


57 . 5% 


68 


Vance 


129 


510 


639 


479 


75.0% 


160 


116 


169 


285 


185 


64 . 9% 


100 


Warren 


88 


206 


294 


212 


72.1% 


82 


29 


60 


89 


54 


60.7% 


35 


District Totals 


471 


1,593 


2,064 


1,531 


74.2% 


533 


345 


542 


887 


555 


62.6% 


332 


District 10 


























Wake 


1,872 


3,785 


5,657 


3,169 


56.0% 


2,488 


1,897 


4,924 


6,821 


3,948 


57.9% 


2,873 


District 11 


























Harnett 


177 


661 


838 


640 


76.4% 


198 


179 


380 


559 


418 


74.8% 


141 


Johnston 


251 


924 


1,175 


901 


76.7% 


274 


241 


568 


809 


569 


70.3% 


240 


Lee 


129 


505 


634 


511 


80.6% 


123 


201 


350 


551 


392 


71.1% 


159 



District Totals 
District 12 



557 2,090 



2,647 



2,052 



77.5% 



595 



621 1,298 



1,919 1,379 



71.9% 



540 



Cumberland 2,242 


4,410 


6,652 


4,204 


63.2% 


2,448 


824 


1,254 


2,078 


1,251 


60 . 2% 


827 


Hoke 62 


193 


255 


170 


66.7% 


85 


49 


103 


152 


90 


59.2% 


62 


District Totals 2,304 


4,603 


6,907 


4,374 


63.3% 


2,533 


873 


1,357 


2,230 


1,341 


60.1% 


889 


District 13 

























Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 



36 
171 
232 



261 

420 
704 



439 1,385 



297 
591 
936 

1,824 



253 
385 
639 

1,277 



85.2% 
65.1% 
68.3% 

70.0% 



44 
206 
297 

547 



968 


1,872 


2,840 


1,836 


217 


1,139 


1,356 


1,098 


125 


276 


401 


284 


201 


526 


727 


517 



64.6% 1,004 



152 


334 


486 


347 


438 


485 


923 


404 


335 


454 


789 


422 


925 


1,273 


2,198 


1,173 


192 


1,614 


2,806 


1,438 



326 



802 



1,128 



801 



81.0% 



70.8% 
71.1% 

71.0% 



258 



117 
210 

327 



273 



77 

270 

347 



617 



76 
522 

598 



890 623 



153 
792 

945 



103 
516 

619 



District Totals 320 

District 17B 

Stokes 55 

Surry 141 

District Totals 196 



964 



214 
540 

754 



1,284 



269 
681 

950 



967 



200 
484 

684 



75.3% 



74.3% 
71.1% 

72.0% 



317 



69 
197 

266 



209 



58 

162 



220 



390 



72 

403 

475 



599 



130 
565 

695 



396 



96 
386 

482 



71.4% 
43.8% 
53.5% 



70.0% 



67.3% 
65.2% 

65.5% 



66.1% 



73.8% 
68.3% 

69.4% 



139 
519 
367 



53.4% 1,025 



51.2% 1,368 



267 



50 
276 

326 



Robeson 


263 


1,118 


1,381 


1,064 


77.0% 


317 


464 


834 


1,298 


859 


66 . 2% 


439 


Scotland 


91 


365 


456 


345 


75.7% 


111 


82 


177 


259 


165 


63.7% 


94 


District Totals 


354 


1,483 


1,837 


1,409 


76.7% 


428 


546 


1,011 


1,557 


1,024 


65.8% 


533 


District 17A 


























Caswell 


69 


142 


211 


154 


73.0% 


57 


36 


46 


82 


46 


56.1% 


36 


Rockingham 


251 


822 


1,073 


813 


75.8% 


260 


173 


344 


517 


350 


67.7% 


167 



203 



34 
179 

213 



142 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Domestic Relations Cases 



General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Begin End liegin End 

Pending % Caseload Pending Pending % Caseload Pending 

7/1/85 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/86 7/1/85 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/86 



District 18 



Guilford 


1,435 


3 


,961 


5,396 


3 


,779 


70.0% 


1,617 


2,351 


3,959 


6,310 


3,735 


59.2% 


2,575 


District 19A 






























Cabarrus 


357 




906 


1,263 




947 


75.0% 


316 


294 


424 


718 


335 


46.7% 


383 


Rowan 


285 




936 


1,221 




962 


78.8% 


259 


373 


581 


954 


536 


56.2% 


418 


District Totals 


642 


1 


,842 


2,484 


1 


,909 


76.9% 


575 


667 


1,005 


1,672 


871 


52.1% 


801 


District 19B 






























Montgomery 


66 




182 


248 




158 


63.7% 


90 


105 


225 


330 


229 


69.4% 


101 


Randolph 


184 




768 


952 




702 


73.7% 


250 


112 


292 


404 


292 


72.3% 


112 


District Totals 


250 




950 


1,200 




860 


71.7% 


340 


217 


517 


734 


521 


71.0% 


213 


District 20 






























Anson 


73 




233 


306 




218 


71.2% 


88 


71 


9 b 


167 


79 


47.3% 


88 


Moore 


252 




539 


791 




514 


65.0% 


277 


402 


311 


713 


282 


39.6% 


431 


Richmond 


189 




445 


634 




425 


67.0% 


209 


250 


227 


477 


241 


50.5% 


236 


Stanly 


148 




354 


502 




323 


64.3% 


179 


242 


342 


584 


303 


51.9% 


281 


Union 


257 




608 


865 




515 


59.5% 


350 


310 


384 


694 


317 


45.7% 


377 


District Totals 


919 


2 


,179 


3,098 


1 


,995 


64.4% 


1,103 


1,275 


1,360 


2,635 


1,222 


46 . 4% 


1,413 


District 21 






























Forsyth 


1,033 


2 


,852 


3,885 


2 


,655. 


68.3% 


1,230 


1,380 


2,909 


4,289 


2,494 


58.1% 


1,795 


District 22 






























Alexander 


55 




183 


238 




180 


75.6% 


58 


24 


90 


114 


76 


66.7% 


38 


Davidson 


318 




946 


1,264 




893 


70.6% 


371 


212 


464 


676 


427 


63.2% 


249 


Davie 


66 




189 


255 




183 


71.8% 


72 


80 


117 


197 


122 


61.9% 


75 


Iredell 


224 




791 


1,015 




766 


75.5% 


249 


251 


685 


936 


612 


65.4% 


324 


District Totals 


663 


2 


,109 


2,772 


2 


,022 


72.9% 


750 


567 


1,356 


1,923 


1,237 


64 . 3% 


686 


District 23 






























Alleghany 


17 




88 


105 




85 


81.0% 


20 


47 


87 


134 


95 


70.9% 


39 


Ashe 


41 




171 


212 




167 


78.8% 


45 


38 


67 


105 


62 


59.0% 


43 


Wilkes 


110 




455 


565 




435 


77.0% 


130 


222 


535 


757 


539 


71.2% 


218 


Yadkin 


55 




222 


277 




203 


73.3% 


74 


66 


115 


181 


112 


61.9% 


69 


District Totals 


223 




936 


1,159 




890 


76.8% 


269 


373 


804 


1,177 


808 


68.6% 


369 


District 24 






























Avery 


69 




114 


183 




99 


54.1% 


84 


95 


145 


240 


154 


64.2% 


86 


Madison 


23 




21 


44 




20 


45.5% 


24 


37 


109 


146 


79 


54.1% 


67 


Mitchell 


43 




101 


144 




111 


77.1% 


33 


42 


147 


189 


93 


49.2% 


96 


Watauga 


117 




274 


391 




279 


71.4% 


112 


144 


316 


460 


252 


54.8% 


208 


Yancey 


29 




119 


148 




113 


76.4% 


35 


15 


39 


54 


39 


72.2% 


15 


District Totals 


281 




629 


910 




622 


68.4% 


288 


333 


756 


1,089 


617 


56.7% 


472 


District 25 






























Burke 


253 




797 


1,050 




705 


67.1% 


345 


181 


445 


626 


413 


66.0% 


213 


Caldwell 


309 




784 


1,093 




859 


78.6% 


234 


169 


387 


556 


405 


72.8% 


151 


Catawba 


422 


1 


,323 


1,745 


1 


,216 


69.7% 


529 


388 


754 


1,142 


731 


64.0% 


411 


District Totals 


984 


2 


,904 


3,888 


2 


,780 


71.5% 


1,108 


738 


1,586 


2,324 


1,549 


66.7% 


775 


District 26 






























Mecklenburg 


1,437 


5 


,575 


7,012 


5 


,350 


76.3% 


1,662 


3,247 


6,542 


9,789 


6,437 


65.8% 


3,352 



143 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Domestic Relations Cases 



General Civil and Magistrate Appeals/Transfers 



Begin End Begin End 

Pending % Caseload Pending Pending % Caseload Pending 

7/1/85 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/86 7/1/85 Filings Total Disposed Disposed 6/30/86 



District 27A 



Gaston 


848 


2,299 


3,147 


2,504 


79.6% 


643 


349 


658 


1,007 


645 


64.1% 


362 


District 27B 


























Cleveland 


226 


963 


1,189 


971 


81.7% 


218 


121 


234 


355 


277 


78.0% 


78 


Lincoln 


74 


424 


498 


408 


81.9% 


90 


62 


158 


220 


170 


77.3% 


50 


District Totals 


300 


1,387 


1,687 


1,379 


81.7% 


308 


183 


392 


575 


447 


77.7% 


128 


District 28 


























Buncombe 


664 


2,033 


2,697 


1,969 


73.0% 


728 


620 


1,478 


2,098 


1,430 


68.2% 


668 


District 29 


























Henderson 


277 


614 


891 


578 


64.9% 


313 


243 


345 


588 


294 


50.0% 


294 


McDowell 


91 


340 


431 


317 


73.5% 


114 


84 


138 


222 


148 


66.7% 


74 


Polk 


19 


90 


109 


84 


77.1% 


25 


24 


46 


70 


48 


68 . 6% 


22 


Rutherford 


214 


569 


783 


543 


69.3% 


240 


109 


136 


245 


146 


59 . 6% 


99 


Transylvania 


133 


263 


396 


227 


57.3% 


169 


135 


264 


399 


161 


40.4% 


238 



District Totals 734 1,876 



2,610 



1,749 



67.0% 



861 



595 



929 



1,524 



797 



52.3% 



727 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



61 


163 




224 




163 


72.8% 


61 


27 


52 


79 


57 


14 


15 




29 




12 


41.4% 


17 


16 


37 


53 


30 


22 


64 




86 




34 


62.8% 


32 


10 


24 


34 


16 


267 


430 




697 




464 


66 . 6% 


233 


135 


146 


281 


195 


74 


206 




280 




198 


70.7% 


82 


63 


169 


232 


153 


y7 


183 




280 




190 


67.9% 


90 


109 


115 


224 


163 


68 


102 




170 




116 


68.2% 


54 


42 


45 


87 


48 


603 


1,163 


1 


,766 


1 


,197 


67.8% 


569 


402 


588 


990 


662 


587 


67,335 


92 


,922 


65 


,827 


70.8% 27 


,095 


25,679 47 


,763 


73,442 


45,087 



72.2% 


22 


56.6% 


23 


47.1% 


18 


69.4% 


86 


65.9% 


79 


72.8% 


61 


55.2% 


39 


66.9% 


328 


61.4% 


28,355 



144 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL 
(NON-MAGISTRATE) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 



Voluntary Dismissal 
(19,130) 



Judge's Final Order/ 

Judgment Without Trial 

(21,635) 




Trial by Judge 
(44,811) 



0.6% 



Other 

(7,432) 



Trial by Jury 
(631) 



Clerk 

(17,275) 



Most civil cases in the district courts are disposed of by 
judges, either before trial or with a bench (non-jury) trial. The 
number of jury trials declined from 722 in 1984-85 to 631 
during the 1985-86 year. Included in the "other" category 



for dispositions of district court civil (non-magistrate) cases 
are actions such as removal to federal court or order from 
another state closing a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of 
Support Act case. 



145 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Judge's Final 
Order or 







Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 1 


















Camden 


Gen 








3 





5 


1 


9 




Dom 








2 


21 





2 


25 


Chowan 


Gen 





4 


20 


16 


24 


4 


68 




Dom 





20 


9 


115 


1 


5 


150 


Currituck 


Gen 





19 


20 


4 


4 


6 


53 




Dom 


1 


60 


16 


12 


2 


9 


100 


Dare 


Gen 


3 


4 


70 


24 


68 


12 


181 




Dom 





10 


19 


81 


1 


18 


129 


Gates 


Gen 





2 


5 





4 


2 


13 




Dom 


3 


2 4 


9 


33 


3 





72 


Pasquotank 


Gen 


5 


17 


58 


4 


63 


12 


159 




Dom 





198 


23 


65 


3 


16 


305 


Perquimans 


Gen 





2 


9 


6 


11 


2 


30 




Dom 





44 


10 


15 


1 


2 


72 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


8 


48 


185 


54 


179 


39 


513 


% of Total 




1.6% 


9.4% 


36.1% 


10.5% 


34 . 9% 


7.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


4 


356 


88 


342 


11 


52 


853 


% of Total 




0.5% 


41.7% 


10.3% 


40.1% 


1.3% 


6.1% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


Gen 


7 


21 


50 


26 


38 


19 


161 




Dom 





209 


11 


97 





31 


348 


Hyde 


Gen 








13 


26 


4 


2 


45 




Dom 








3 


46 


1 


3 


53 


Martin 


Gen 


1 


1 


24 


43 


28 


6 


103 




Dom 





19 


13 


248 


1 


29 


310 


Tyrrell 


Gen 








2 


4 


3 





9 




Dom 





2 


1 


21 


1 





25 


Washington 


Gen 


3 


16 


35 


8 


77 


5 


144 




Dom 


2 


50 


14 


47 


1 


8 


122 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


11 


38 


124 


107 


150 


32 


462 


% of Total 




2.4% 


8.2% 


26.8% 


23.2% 


32.5% 


6.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


280 


42 


459 


4 


71 


858 


% of Total 




0.2% 


32.6% 


4.9% 


53.5% 


0.5% 


8.3% 


100.0% 


District 3 


















Carteret 


Gen 


2 


72 


113 


8 


85 


19 


299 




Dom 


1 


439 


43 


48 


1 


268 


800 


Craven 


Gen 


1 3 


46 


207 


87 


360 


125 


838 




Dom 





606 


67 


135 


5 


434 


1,247 


Pamlico 


Gen 





5 


11 


2 


8 


6 


32 




Dom 





:>') 


6 


33 





53 


121 


Pitt 


Gen 


2 


25 


238 


383 





27 


675 




Dom 





473 


37 


187 





349 


1,046 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


17 


148 


569 


480 


453 


177 


1,844 


% of Total 




0.9% 


8.0% 


30 . 9% 


26.0% 


24.6% 


9.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,547 


153 


403 


6 


1,104 


3,214 


% of Total 




.0% 


48.1% 


4.8% 


12.5% 


0.2% 


34.3% 


100.0% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


Gen 





L9 


60 


27 


72 


13 


191 




Dom 





56 


15 


279 





7 


357 


J ', -i <• s 


Gen 








13 


38 


12 


1 


64 




Dom 








4 


69 





(J 


73 


Onslow 


Gen 


4 


139 


189 


21 


104 


16 


473 




Dom 


] 


1,015 


91 


147 


36 


186 


1,476 


',3~p%on 


Gen 


2 


25 


73 


9 


82 


5 


196 




ijora 


1 


256 


53 


186 


3 


4 


503 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


6 


183 


335 


95 


270 


35 


924 


% of Total 




0.6% 


19.8% 


36.3% 


10.3% 


29.2% 


3.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


1,327 


163 


681 


39 


197 


2,409 


% of Total 




0.1% 


55.1% 


6.8% 


28.3% 


1.6% 


8.2% 


100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, all 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 

146 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Judge's Final 

Order or 

Judgment 
without Trial Clerk Other 



Trial by 
Jury 



Trial by 
Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Total 
Disposed 



District 5 



New Hanover 


Gen 




Dom 


Pender 


Gen 




Dom 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


% of Total 






Dom 


% of Total 




District 6 




Bertie 


Gen 




Dom 


Halifax 


Gen 




Dom 


Hertford 


Gen 




Dom 


Northampton 


Gen 




Dom 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


% of Total 






Dom 


% of Total 




District 7 




Edgecombe 


Gen 




Dom 


Nash 


Gen 




Dom 


Wilson 


Gen 




Dom 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


% of Total 






Dom 


% of Total 




District 8 




Greene 


Gen 




Dom 


Lenoir 


Gen 




Dom 


Wayne 


Gen 




Dom 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


% of Total 






Dom 


% of Total 




District 9 





Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 



Dist Totals Gen 
% of Total 

Dom 
% of Total 



23 


139 


1 


852 





17 





83 


23 


156 


1.2% 


8.0% 


1 


935 


0.1% 


48.9% 





14 





109 





39 





241 


3 


11 


1 


128 





9 


2 


187 


3 


73 


0.6% 


15.0% 


3 


665 


0.2% 


42.9% 


4 


26 





310 


5 


50 


1 


471 


3 


48 


2 


467 


12 


124 


0.9% 


9.7% 


3 


1,248 


0.1% 


56.7% 











1 


3 


60 


2 


416 


7 


120 


3 


903 


10 


180 


0.8% 


15.2% 


5 


1,320 


0.3% 


66 . 9% 














3 


18 


1 


131 


2 


27 


1 


257 


2 


30 





240 


1 


7 





78 


8 


82 


1.4% 


14.8% 


2 


706 


0.1% 


46.1% 



560 

115 

47 

22 

607 

31.2% 

137 

7.2% 



22 
7 
61 
25 
43 
12 
21 



147 

30.2% 

52 

3.4% 



92 

61 
183 

41 
114 

53 

389 

30.5% 

155 

7.0% 



6 

6 

170 

85 

238 

122 

414 
34.9% 

213 
10.8% 



31 
31 
47 
39 

28 
17 
53 
36 
16 
21 

175 

31.5% 

144 

9.4% 



217 

532 

21 

155 

238 

12.2% 

687 
35.9% 



4 

143 

69 

471 

18 

133 



1 

91 
18.7% 

748 
48.3% 



62 
235 

30 
143 

63 
193 

155 
12.2% 

571 
25.9% 



18 
131 

45 
131 

65 
66 

126 
10.6% 

328 
16.6% 



28 
229 

15 

35 
3 
4 

15 
183 

10 
112 

71 
12.8% 

563 
36.8% 



661 


224 


3 


119 


27 


10 





30 


688 


234 


35.4% 


12.0% 


3 


149 


0.2% 


7.8% 


23 


2 


5 


4 


57 


2 


4 


13 


65 


2 


4 


23 


22 








29 


167 


6 


34.3% 


1.2% 


13 


69 


0.8% 


4.5% 


90 


14 


1 


48 


243 


56 


6 


73 


158 


33 


6 


90 


491 


103 


38.5% 


8.1% 


13 


211 


0.6% 


9.6% 











16 


206 


2 


10 


4 


216 


33 


23 


53 


422 


35 


35.6% 


2.9% 


33 


73 


1.7% 


3.7% 


29 


4 


5 


6 


33 


16 


52 


25 


30 


2 


4 


3 


71 


14 





20 


19 


1 





1 


182 


37 


32.8% 


6.7% 


61 


55 


4.0% 


3.6% 



1,824 

1,622 

122 

290 

1,946 
100.0% 
1,912 
100.0% 



65 
268 
228 
754 
142 
301 

52 
227 

487 
100.0% 
1,550 

100.0% 



288 
655 
567 
735 
419 
811 

1,274 
100.0% 
2,201 
100.0% 



24 
154 
486 
648 
677 
1,170 

1,187 
100.0% 
1,972 
100.0% 



92 
271 
132 
283 

92 
286 
185 
479 

54 
212 

555 
100.0% 
1,531 
100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, all 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 

147 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 









July 


1, 1985 - 


June 30, 1986 

Judge's Final 
Order or 












Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 






Total 






Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 


Clerk 


Other 


Disposed 


District 10 


















Wake 


Gen 


19 


177 


1,044 


490 


1,855 


363 


3,948 


% of Total 




0.5% 


4.5% 


26.4% 


12.4% 


47.0% 


9.2% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


2,081 


150 


777 


2 


158 


3,169 


% of Total 




.0% 


65.7% 


4.7% 


24 . 5% 


0.1% 


5.0% 


100.0% 


District 11 


















Harnett 


Gen 


4 


43 


161 


80 


121 


4 


418 




Dom 


1 


356 


56 


204 


13 


10 


640 


Johnston 


Gen 


1 


35 


189 


110 


225 


9 


569 




Dom 


19 


494 


91 


279 


9 


9 


901 


Lee 


Gen 


5 


59 


143 


39 


145 


1 


392 




Dom 





322 


62 


123 


4 





511 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


15 


137 


493 


229 


491 


14 


1,379 


Z of Total 




1.1% 


9.9% 


35 . 8% 


16.6% 


35.6% 


1.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 


20 


1,172 


209 


606 


26 


19 


2,052 


% of Total 




1.0% 


57.1% 


10.2% 


29.5% 


1.3% 


0.9% 


100.0% 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


Gen 


9 


347 


310 


77 


389 


119 


1,251 




Dom 





2,868 


321 


741 


17 


257 


4,204 


Hoke 


Gen 


2 


19 


31 


5 


32 


1 


90 




Dom 





69 


]h 


84 


1 





170 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


11 


366 


341 


82 


421 


120 


1,341 


% of Total 




0.8% 


27.3% 


25.4% 


6.1% 


31.4% 


8.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 





2,937 


337 


825 


18 


257 


4,374 


% of Total 




0.0% 


67.1% 


7.7% 


18.9% 


0.4% 


5.9% 


100.0% 


District 13 


















Bladen 


Gen 


5 


44 


145 


28 


114 


11 


347 




Dom 





70 


19 


142 


3 


19 


253 


Brunswick 


Gen 


5 


51 


215 


26 


107 





404 




Dom 





234 


33 


116 


2 





385 


Columbus 


Gen 


; ) 


57 


159 


33 


144 


16 


422 




Dom 





361 


94 


157 





27 


639 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


23 


152 


519 


87 


365 


27 


1,173 


% of Total 




2.0% 


13.0% 


44.2% 


7.4% 


31.1% 


2.3% 


100.0% 




Dom 





665 


146 


415 


5 


46 


1,277 


% of Total 




0.0% 


52 . 1% 


11.4% 


32.5% 


0.4% 


3.6% 


100.0% 


District 14 


















Durham 


Gen 


6 


173 


369 


26 


697 


167 


1,438 


% of Total 




0.4% 


12.0% 


25.7% 


1.8% 


48.5% 


11.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


1 


1,038 


131 


452 


3 


211 


1,836 


% of Total 




0.1% 


56.5% 


7.1% 


24.6% 


0.2% 


11.5% 


100.0% 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


Gen 


8 


74 


181 


96 


239 


25 


623 


% of Total 




1.3% 


11.9% 


29.1% 


15.4% 


38 . 4% 


4.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 





723 


84 


263 


14 


14 


1,098 


% of Total 




0.0% 


65.8% 


7.7% 


24 . 0% 


1.3% 


1.3% 


100.0% 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


Gen 


6 


1.' 


26 


8 


26 


25 


103 




Dom 


1 


124 


18 


104 





37 


284 


Orange 


Gen 


3 


54 


179 


41 


L91 


48 


516 




i;o- 


2 


307 


27 


78 


45 


58 


517 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


9 


66 


205 


49 


217 


73 


619 


% of Total 




1.5% 


10.7% 


33.1% 


7.9% 


35.1% 


11.8% 


100.0% 




Dom 


3 


431 


45 


182 


45 


95 


801 


% of Total 




0.4% 


53.8% 


5.6% 


22.7% 


5.6% 


11.9% 


100.0% 



^Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to juc 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 

148 



all 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Trial by 
Jury 



Trial by 
Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Judge's Final 

Order or 

Judgment 

without Trial 



Clerk 



Other 



Total 
Disposed 



District 16 



Robeson 


Gen 




1 


182 


359 


24 


249 


44 


859 




Dom 







597 


75 


316 


11 


65 


1,064 


Scotland 


Gen 




1 


23 


42 


21 


66 


12 


165 




Dom 







155 


26 


144 


1 


19 


345 


Dist Totals 


Gen 




2 


205 


401 


45 


315 


56 


1,024 


% of Total 







.2% 


20.0% 


39.2% 


4.4% 


30.8% 


5.5% 


100.0% 




Dom 







752 


101 


460 


12 


84 


1,409 


% of Total 







.0% 


53.4% 


7.2% 


32.6% 


0.9% 


6.0% 


100.0% 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


Gen 










11 


25 


6 


4 


46 




Dom 







1 


9 


121 


1 


22 


154 


Rockingham 


Gen 




4 


40 


109 


19 


170 


8 


350 




Dom 




3 


442 


63 


234 


5 


66 


813 


Dist Totals 


Gen 




4 


40 


120 


44 


176 


12 


396 


% of Total 




1 


.0% 


10.1% 


30.3% 


11.1% 


44.4% 


3.0% 


100.0% 




Dom 




3 


443 


72 


355 


6 


88 


967 


% of Total 







.3% 


45.8% 


7.4% 


36.7% 


0.6% 


9.1% 


100.0% 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


Gen 




1 


12 


40 


8 


28 


7 


96 




Dom 




2 


97 


27 


55 


5 


14 


200 


Surry 


Gen 




7 


39 


112 


37 


189 


2 


386 




Dom 




1 


248 


35 


193 


2 


5 


484 


Dist Totals 


Gen 




8 


51 


152 


45 


217 


9 


482 


% of Total 




1 


.7% 


10.6% 


31.5% 


9.3% 


45.0% 


1.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 




3 


345 


62 


248 


7 


19 


684 


% of Total 







.4% 


50.4% 


9.1% 


36 . 3% 


1.0% 


2.8% 


100.0% 


District 18 




















Guilford 


Gen 




35 


374 


1,098 


411 


1,627 


190 


3,735 


% of Total 







.9% 


10.0% 


29.4% 


11.0% 


43.6% 


5.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 




L0 


3,142 


156 


271 


31 


169 


3,779 


% of Total 







.3% 


83.1% 


4.1% 


7.2% 


0.8% 


4.5% 


100.0% 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


Gen 




3 


67 


117 


31 


108 


9 


335 




Dom 




2 


591 


93 


189 


5 


67 


947 


Rowan 


Gen 







86 


197 


66 


184 


3 


536 




Dom 




1 


712 


100 


129 


6 


14 


962 


Dist Totals 


Gen 




3 


153 


314 


97 


292 


12 


871 


% of Total 







.3% 


17.6% 


36.1% 


11.1% 


33.5% 


1.4% 


100.0% 




Dom 




3 


1,303 


193 


318 


11 


81 


1,909 


% of Total 







.2% 


68.3% 


10.1% 


16.7% 


0.6% 


4.2% 


100.0% 


District 19B 





















Montgomery Gen 
Dom 

Randolph Gen 
Dora 



27 
136 

32 
370 



119 
12 
65 
63 



12 
7 

16 
188 



71 



160 

3 





3 

16 

78 



229 
158 
292 
702 



Dist Totals Gen 
% of Total 

Dom 
% of Total 



3 
0.6% 


0.0% 



59 
11.3% 

506 
58.8% 



184 

35.3% 

75 

8.7% 



28 

5.4% 

195 

22.7% 



231 
44.3% 
3 
0.3% 



16 
3.1% 

81 
9.4% 



521 

100.0% 

860 

100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/ transfers from magistrates to judges 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



all 



149 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



District 20 









Judge's Final 








Order or 


Trial by 


Trial by 


Voluntary 


Judgment 


Jury 


Judge 


Dismissal 


without Trial 



Total 
Clerk Other Disposed 



Anson 




Gen 


2 


14 


29 


16 


18 





79 






Dom 





84 


23 


104 


6 


1 


218 


Moore 




Gen 


5 


74 


116 


24 


62 


1 


282 






Dom 





373 


48 


83 


2 


8 


514 


Richmonc 




Gen 





42 


119 


1 


74 


5 


241 






Dom 





352 


21 


1 


26 


25 


425 


Stanly 




Gen 


4 


23 


100 


175 





1 


303 






Dom 





202 


10 


107 


1 


3 


323 


Union 




Gen 


13 


41 


121 


18 


121 


3 


317 






Dom 


6 


351 


50 


99 


3 


6 


515 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


24 


194 


485 


234 


275 


10 


1,222 


% of 


Total 




2.0% 


15.9% 


39.7% 


19.1% 


22.5% 


0.8% 


100.0% 






Dom 


6 


1,362 


152 


394 


38 


43 


1,995 


% of 


Total 




0.3% 


68 . 3% 


7.6% 


19.7% 


1.9% 


2.2% 


100.0% 


District 


21 


















Forsyth 




Gen 


10 


78 


857 


360 


1,146 


43 


2,494 


% of 


Total 




0.4% 


3.1% 


34.4% 


14.4% 


46.0% 


1.7% 


100.0% 






Dom 


4 


1,775 


213 


606 


17 


40 


2,655 


% of 


Total 




0.2% 


66 . 9% 


8.0% 


22.8% 


0.6% 


1.5% 


100.0% 


District 


22 


















Alexander 


Gen 





13 


16 


5 


36 


6 


76 






Dom 





92 


8 


61 





19 


180 


Davidson 




Gen 


9 


64 


145 


44 


144 


21 


427 






Dom 





471 


82 


292 


11 


37 


893 


Davie 




Gen 


1 


24 


44 


12 


39 


2 


122 






Dom 





110 


45 


25 


2 


1 


183 


Iredell 




Gen 


10 


106 


180 


14 


280 


22 


612 






Dom 





485 


101 


143 


13 


24 


766 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


20 


207 


385 


75 


499 


51 


1,237 


% of 


Total 




1.6% 


16.7% 


31.1% 


6.1% 


40.3% 


4.1% 


100.0% 






Dom 





1,158 


236 


521 


26 


81 


2,022 


% of 


Total 




0.0% 


57.3% 


11.7% 


25.8% 


1.3% 


4.0% 


100.0% 


District 


23 


















Alleghan 


y 


Gen 


3 


10 


44 


1 


34 


3 


95 






Dom 


7 


52 


11 


8 


1 


6 


85 


Ashe 




Gen 


1 


L5 


20 


6 


16 


4 


62 






Dom 


1 


L25 


18 


13 


3 


7 


167 


Wilkes 




Gen 


17 


4 3 


134 


131 


205 


9 


539 






Dom 





219 


43 


153 


9 


11 


435 


Yadkin 




Gen 


8 


8 


41 


17 


32 


6 


112 






Dom 


3 


100 


13 


62 


4 


21 


203 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


29 


76 


239 


155 


287 


22 


808 


% of 


Total 




3.6% 


9.4% 


29.6% 


19.2% 


35.5% 


2.7% 


100.0% 






Dom 


11 


496 


85 


236 


17 


45 


890 


% of 


Total 




1.2% 


55.7% 


9.6% 


26.5% 


1.9% 


5.1% 


100.0% 


District 


24 



















Avery Gen 12 53 10 76 3 154 

Dom 60 11 21 2 5 99 

Madison Gen 14 9 47 3 6 79 

Dom 3 6 11 20 

Mitchell Gen 1 4 35 43 2 8 93 

Dom 1 10 16 69 15 111 

Watauga Gen 3 27 123 27 59 13 252 

Dom 1 168 26 59 1 24 279 

Yancey Gen 5 13 14 4 3 39 

Dom 9 57 17 25 5 113 

Dist Totals Gen 4 62 233 141 144 33 617 

% of Total 0.6% 10.0% 37.8% 22.9% 23.3% 5.3% 100.0% 

Dom 11 295 73 180 3 60 622 

% of Total 1.8%" 4 7.4% 11.7% 28.9% 0.5% 9.6% 100.0% 

*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, all 
identified as (GEN) , and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 

150 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Judge's Final 

Order or 

Judgment 
without Trial Clerk Other 



Trial by 
Jury 



Trial by 
Judge 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Total 
Disposed 



District 25 



Burke 


Gen 


7 


64 


224 


51 


65 


2 


413 




Dom 


2 


453 


58 


186 


2 


4 


705 


Caldwell 


Gen 


13 


12 


130 


141 


100 


9 


405 




Dom 


3 


341 


62 


289 


4 


160 


859 


Catawba 


Gen 


3 


74 


212 


86 


334 


22 


731 




Dom 





747 


101 


355 


4 


9 


1,216 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


23 


150 


566 


278 


499 


33 


1,549 


% of Total 




1.5% 


9.7% 


36.5% 


17.9% 


32.2% 


2.1% 


100.0% 




Dom 


5 


1,541 


221 


830 


10 


173 


2,780 


% of Total 




0.2% 


55.4% 


7.9% 


29 . 9% 


0.4% 


6.2% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


Gen 


40 


1,224 


1,938 


743 


2,452 


40 


6,437 


% of Total 




0.6% 


19.0% 


30.1% 


11.5% 


38.1% 


0.6% 


100.0% 




Dom 


6 


3,711 


274 


863 


35 


461 


5,350 


% of Total 




0.1% 


69.4% 


5.1% 


16.1% 


0.7% 


8.6% 


100.0% 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


Gen 


26 


91 


221 


28 


211 


68 


645 


% of Total 




4.0% 


14.1% 


34.3% 


4.3% 


32.7% 


10.5% 


100.0% 




Dom 





1,568 


107 


307 


8 


514 


2,504 


% of Total 




0.0% 


62 . 6% 


4.3% 


12.3% 


0.3% 


20.5% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


Gen 


7 


53 


73 


20 


95 


29 


277 




Dom 


1 


502 


92 


314 


7 


55 


971 


Lincoln 


Gen 


6 


42 


47 


17 


57 


1 


170 




Dom 


1 


274 


47 


82 


4 





408 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


13 


95 


120 


37 


152 


30 


447 


% of Total 




2.9% 


21.3% 


26 . 8% 


8.3% 


34.0% 


6.7% 


100.0% 




Dom 


2 


776 


139 


396 


11 


55 


1,379 


% of Total 




0.1% 


56.3% 


10.1% 


28.7% 


0.8% 


4.0% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


Gen 


30 


178 


362 


185 


533 


142 


1,430 


% of Total 




2.1% 


12.4% 


25.3% 


12.9% 


37.3% 


9.9% 


100.0% 




Dom 


8 


1,063 


157 


602 


35 


104 


1,969 


% of Total 




0.4% 


54.0% 


8.0% 


30.6% 


1.8% 


5.3% 


100.0% 


District 29 



















Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 
Rutherford 



Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Gen 
Dom 
Transylvania Gen 
Dom 



42 
296 

11 

41 
2 
4 

41 
402 

31 
129 



95 
52 
32 
32 
11 
5 
43 
38 
4 5 
19 



120 
170 
27 
234 
24 
64 
15 
84 
20 
74 



13 


b4 
4 
5 
1 

35 
3 

57 




22 

60 

12 

6 

6 

10 

3 

14 

1 

3 



294 
578 
148 
317 
48 
84 
146 
543 
161 
227 



Dist Totals Gen 20 127 

% of Total 2.5% 15.9% 

Dom 4 872 

% of Total 0.2% 49.9% 



226 

28.4% 

146 

8.3% 



206 

25.8% 

626 

35.8% 



174 
21.8% 
8 
0.5% 



44 
5.5% 

93 
5.3% 



797 
100.0% 
1,749 

100.0% 



*Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, all 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



151 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL (NON-MAGISTRATE) 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS* 





July 1, 1985 - 


June 30, 198( 

Judge's Final 
Order or 


Trial by 


Trial by Voluntary 


Judgment 


Jury 


Judge Dismissal 


without Trial 



Total 
Clerk Other Disposed 



District 


30 




Cherokee 




Gen 
Dom 


Clay 




Gen 
Dom 


Graham 




Gen 
Dom 


Haywood 




Gen 
Dom 


Jackson 




Gen 

Dom 


Macon 




Gen 
Dom 


Swain 




Gen 
Dom 


Dist Totals 


Gen 


% of 


Total 


Dom 


% of 


Total 




State Totals 


Gen 


% of 


Total 


Dom 


% of 


Total 





n 


9 


17 





8') 


29 


: 


6 


10 





4 


3 





2 


4 


i 


28 


9 


3 


57 


69 


9 


273 


bo 


1 


17 


62 





91 


24 


3 


17 


47 


2 


99 


23 


I 


6 


18 





33 


40 


12 


114 


227 


1.8% 


17.2% 


34.3% 


12 


617 


194 


1.0% 


51.5% 


16.2% 


495 


5,655 


14,225 


1.1% 


12.5% 


31.6% 


136 


39,156 


4,905 


0.2% 


59 . 5% 


7.5% 



12 16 

34 
6 5 

3 1 

4 3 

12 2 

13 44 
75 9 
19 42 
67 1 

9 49 

39 

9 9 

35 3 

72 168 

10.9% 25.4% 

265 16 

22.1% 1.3% 

5,660 16,685 

12.6% 37.0% 

15,975 590 

24.3% 0.9% 



3 


57 


11 


163 


1 


30 


1 


12 


3 


16 


2 


54 


9 


195 


32 


464 


in 


153 


15 


198 


38 


163 


27 


190 


5 


48 


5 


116 


69 


662 


10.4% 


100.0% 


93 


1,197 


7.8% 


100.0% 


,367 


45,087 


5.2% 


100.0% 


,065 


65,827 


7.7% 


100.0% 



-'Cases covered in this table are general civil and appeals/transfers from magistrates to judges, all 
identified as (GEN), and Domestic Relations (DOM) cases. 



152 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



6-12 



12 



District 1 



Camden 




15 


88.2% 


2 


11.8% 





0.0% 


Chowan 




22 


57.9% 


6 


15.8% 


10 


26.3% 


Currituck 




17 


53.1% 


9 


28.1% 


6 


18.8% 


Dare 




44 


51.2% 


20 


23.3% 


22 


25.6% 


Gates 




6 


37.5% 


4 


25.0% 


6 


37.5% 


Pasquotank 




56 


57.1% 


15 


15.3% 


27 


27.6% 


Perquimans 




27 


54.0% 


5 


10.0% 


18 


36.0% 


District 


Totals 


187 


55 . 5% 


61 


18.1% 


89 


26.4% 


District 2 
















Beaufort 




82 


57.7% 


21 


14.8% 


39 


27.5% 


Hyde 




12 


63.2% 


1 


5.3% 


6 


31.6% 


Martin 




58 


52.3% 


14 


12.6% 


39 


35.1% 


Tyrrell 




4 


40.0% 


3 


30 . 0% 


3 


30.0% 


Washington 




19 


55 . 9% 


9 


26.5% 


6 


17.6% 


District 


Totals 


175 


55.4% 


48 


15.2% 


93 


29.4% 


District 3 
















Carteret 




112 


65.9% 


42 


24 . 7% 


16 


9.4% 


Craven 




202 


55.2% 


132 


36.1% 


32 


8.7% 


Pamlico 




17 


53.1% 


15 


46.9% 





0.0% 


Pitt 




149 


65.4% 


61 


26.8% 


18 


7.9% 


District 


Totals 


480 


60.3% 


250 


31.4% 


66 


8.3% 


District 4 
















Duplin 




93 


59.2% 


36 


22.9% 


28 


17.8% 


Jones 




9 


20.0% 


5 


11.1% 


31 


68.9% 


Onslow 




474 


37.4% 


169 


13.3% 


625 


49.3% 


Sampson 




110 


49.1% 


38 


17.0% 


76 


33 . 9% 


District 


Totals 


686 


40.5% 


248 


14.6% 


760 


44 . 9% 


District 5 
















New Hanover 




330 


53.7% 


129 


21.0% 


156 


25.4% 


Pender 




61 


54.0% 


25 


22.1% 


27 


23.9% 


District 


Totals 


391 


53.7% 


154 


21.2% 


183 


25.1% 


District 6 

















Bertie 53 59.6% 31 34.8% 

Halifax 167 86.1% 20 10.3% 

Hertford 73 64.6% 34 30.1% 

Northampton 43 76.8% 10 17.9% 

District Totals 336 74.3% 95 21.0% 



5 


5.6% 


7 


3.6% 


6 


5.3% 


3 


5.4% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


17 


102.1 


84.0 


38 


295.3 


119.5 


32 


198.9 


130.0 


8b 


241.0 


149.0 


lb 


445.7 


261.0 


98 


262.8 


126.5 


50 


356.2 


127.5 



21 



4.6% 



337 



142 
19 

111 
10 
34 

316 



170 

366 

32 

228 

796 



157 

45 

1,268 

224 

1,694 



615 
113 

728 



89 
194 
113 

56 

452 



269.3 



260.2 
303.5 
545.3 
359.8 
189.9 

358.6 



154.6 
191.6 
171.5 
151.0 

171.2 



243.4 
990.0 
512.7 
309.9 

473.6 



262.0 
264.5 

262.4 



173.3 

99.6 

159.7 

124.0 

132.2 



133.0 



130.0 
111.0 
145.0 
234.5 
92.0 

144.0 



113. 

148. 



129.0 
101.5 



124.0 



115.0 
852.0 
351.5 
187.5 

299.0 



154.0 
146.0 

151.5 



154.0 
61.0 

147.0 
85.0 

87.0 



District 7 



Edgecombe 


106 


61.3% 


29 


16.8% 


38 


22.0% 


173 


222.1 


123.0 


Nash 


163 


73.8% 


32 


14.5% 


26 


11.8% 


221 


151.0 


75.0 


Wilson 


135 


55.8% 


30 


12.4% 


77 


31.8% 


242 


333.3 


156.0 


District Totals 


404 


63 . 5% 


91 


14.3% 


141 


22.2% 


636 


239.7 


113.5 


District 8 




















Greene 


26 


68.4% 


8 


21.1% 


4 


10.5% 


38 


143.3 


100.0 


Lenoir 


192 


59.4% 


71 


22.0% 


60 


18.6% 


323 


196.5 


138.0 


Wayne 


256 


59.8% 


128 


29.9% 


44 


10.3% 


428 


181.9 


125.0 



District Totals 



474 



60.1% 



207 



26.2% 



108 



13.7% 



789 



186.0 



129.0 



153 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



<6 



6-i: 



% 



District 9 



Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



>12 



Franklin 


DM 


58.2% 


22 


20.0% 


24 


21.8% 


Granville 


74 


65.5% 


19 


16.8% 


20 


17.7% 


Person 


47 


69.1% 


10 


14.7% 


11 


16.2% 


Vance 


QS 


59.4% 


40 


25.0% 


25 


15.6% 


Warren 


50 


61.0% 


18 


22.0% 


14 


17.1% 


District Totals 


330 


61.9% 


109 


20.5% 


94 


17.6% 


District 10 














Wake 


916 


36.8% 


405 


16.3% 


1167 


46.9% 


District 11 















156 


78.8% 


34 


17.2% 


8 


4.0% 


175 


63.9% 


57 


20.8% 


42 


15.3% 


89 


72.4% 


29 


23.6% 


5 


4.1% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


'ending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


110 


260.5 


143.0 


113 


179.5 


102.0 


68 


162.8 


74.5 


160 


210.5 


136.0 


82 


198.8 


142.0 



420 



70.6% 



120 



20.2% 



55 



9.2% 



533 



2,488 



198 
274 
123 

595 



206.4 



469.6 



117.7 
175.5 
118.4 

144.5 



117.0 



335.0 



76.5 

120.5 

56.0 

89.0 



District 12 




















Cumberland 


1,266 


51.7% 


551 


22.5% 


631 


25.8% 


2,448 


242.7 


165.0 


Hoke 


35 


41.2% 


13 


15.3% 


37 


43.5% 


85 


566.9 


283.0 


District Totals 


1,301 


51.4% 


564 


22.3% 


668 


26.4% 


2,533 


253.6 


167.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


34 


77.3% 


4 


9.1% 


6 


13.6% 


44 


161.8 


66.0 


Brunswick 


97 


47.1% 


40 


19.4% 


69 


33.5% 


206 


347.2 


222.0 


Columbus 


154 


51.9% 


63 


21.2% 


80 


26 . 9% 


297 


244.2 


157.0 


District Totals 


285 


52.1% 


107 


19.6% 


155 


28.3% 


547 


276.4 


165.0 


District 14 





















Durham 



500 



49.8% 



166 



16.5% 



338 



33.7% 



1,004 



325.6 



181.0 



District 15A 
Alamance 



205 



79.5% 



33 



12.8% 



20 



7.8% 



258 



112.2 



47.0 



District 15B 



Chatham 


49 


41.9% 


24 


20.5% 


44 


37.6% 


117 


307.8 


242.0 


Orange 


116 


55.2% 


50 


23.8% 


44 


21.0% 


210 


215.4 


148.5 


District Totals 


165 


50.5% 


74 


22.6% 


88 


26.9% 


327 


248.5 


178.0 


District 16 




















Robeson 


204 


64.4% 


53 


16.7% 


60 


18.9% 


317 


190.4 


109.0 


Scotland 


68 


61.3% 


23 


20.7% 


20 


18.0% 


111 


185.2 


108.0 


District Totals 


272 


63.6% 


76 


17.8% 


80 


18.7% 


428 


189.0 


108.5 


District 17A 




















Caswell 


37 


64.9% 


16 


28.1% 


4 


7.0% 


57 


176.2 


103.0 


Rockingham 


160 


61.5% 


70 


26.9% 


30 


11.5% 


260 


175.0 


131.5 



District Totals 197 62.1% 86 27.1% 34 10.7% 

District 17B 

Stokes 46 66.7% 18 26.1% 5 7.2% 

Surry 110 55.8% 42 21.3% 45 22.8% 

District Totals 156 58.6% 60 22.6% 50 18.8% 



317 



f>9 
197 

266 



175.2 



145.4 
236.7 

213.0 



119.0 



109.0 
144.0 

125.0 



154 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 



<6 



Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



6-12 



>12 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 18 



Guilford 


796 


49.2% 


313 


19.4% 


508 


31.4% 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


185 


58.5% 


50 


15.8% 


81 


25.6% 


Rowan 


187 


72.2% 


41 


15.8% 


31 


12.0% 


District Totals 


372 


64.7% 


91 


15.8% 


112 


19.5% 


District 19B 














Montgomery 


46 


51.1% 


21 


23.3% 


23 


25.6% 


Randolph 


166 


66.4% 


51 


20.4% 


33 


13.2% 


District Totals 


212 


62.4% 


72 


21.2% 


56 


16.5% 


District 20 














Anson 


48 


54 . 5% 


17 


19.3% 


23 


26.1% 


Moore 


137 


49.5% 


37 


13.4% 


103 


37.2% 


Richmond 


95 


45.5% 


44 


21.1% 


70 


33.5% 


Stanly 


79 


44.1% 


19 


10.6% 


81 


45.3% 


Union 


143 


40.9% 


68 


19.4% 


139 


39.7% 


District Totals 


502 


45.5% 


185 


16.8% 


416 


37.7% 


District 21 














Forsyth 


695 


56.5% 


191 


15.5% 


344 


28.0% 


District 22 














Alexander 


40 


69.0% 


10 


17.2% 


8 


13.8% 


Davidson 


212 


57.1% 


83 


22.4% 


76 


20.5% 


Davie 


40 


55.6% 


9 


12.5% 


23 


31.9% 


Iredell 


190 


76.3% 


42 


16.9% 


17 


6.8% 


District Totals 


482 


64.3% 


144 


19.2% 


124 


16.5% 


District 23 














Alleghany 


16 


80.0% 


3 


15.0% 


1 


5.0% 


Ashe 


34 


75.6% 


10 


22.2% 


1 


2.2% 


Wilkes 


96 


73.8% 


24 


18.5% 


10 


7.7% 


Yadkin 


51 


68.9% 


14 


18.9% 


9 


12.2% 


District Totals 


197 


73.2% 


51 


19.0% 


21 


7.8% 


District 24 














Avery 


34 


40.5% 


15 


17.9% 


35 


41.7% 


Madison 


6 


25.0% 


4 


16.7% 


14 


58.3% 


Mitchell 


20 


60.6% 


8 


24 . 2% 


5 


15.2% 


Watauga 


72 


64 . 3% 


19 


17.0% 


21 


18.8% 


Yancey 


29 


82.9% 


4 


11.4% 


2 


5.7% 


District Totals 


161 


55.9% 


50 


17.4% 


77 


26.7% 


District 25 














Burke 


184 


53.3% 


71 


20.6% 


90 


26.1% 


Caldwell 


162 


69 . 2% 


41 


17.5% 


31 


13.2% 


Catawba 


294 


55.6% 


92 


17.4% 


143 


27.0% 


District Totals 


640 


57.8% 


204 


18.4% 


264 


23.8% 


District 26 















Mecklenburg 



1,133 



68.2% 



398 



23.9% 



131 



7.9% 



1,617 



316 
259 

575 



90 
250 

340 



277 
209 
179 
350 

1,103 



1,230 



58 
371 

72 
249 

750 



20 

45 

130 

74 

269 



84 
24 
33 
112 
35 

288 



345 
234 
529 

1,108 
1,662 



291.9 



208.9 
156.2 

185.1 



248.2 
168.9 

189.9 



266.9 
360.8 
321.7 
454.8 
341.7 

355.1 



284.5 



162.3 
215.4 
280.8 
133.7 

190.4 



109.2 
112.1 
123.8 
170.5 

133.6 



379.6 
616.6 
220.9 
218.2 
126.9 

287.7 



334.5 
169.3 

242.5 

255.7 



141.0 



196.0 



131.0 
69.0 

97.0 



178.5 
88.5 

106.5 



125.0 
195.0 
224.0 
266.0 
257.0 

234.0 



131.5 



63.0 
132.0 
151.5 

76.0 

103.5 



71.5 
47.0 
60.0 
88.5 

66.0 



281.0 
480.5 
89.0 
113.0 
102.0 

159.5 



147.0 

94.5 

140.0 

130.0 



90.0 



155 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



Total Mean Median 



<6 % 6-12 % >12 % Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 

District 27A 

Gaston 458 71.2% 137 21.3% 48 7.5% 643 133.3 77.0 



District 27B 

4 1.8% 218 88.6 62.0 
1 1.1% 90 79.4 63.0 

5 1.6% 308 85.9 62.5 

Buncombe 520 71.4% 144 19.8% 64 8.8% 728 151.1 102.0 

District 29 

Henderson 164 52.4% 70 22.4% 79 25.2% 313 244.7 150.0 

McDowell 68 59.6% 27 23.7% 19 16.7% 114 218.1 158.0 



Cleveland 


194 


89 


0% 


20 


9 


2% 


Lincoln 


83 


9^ 


2% 


6 


6 


7% 


District Totals 


277 


89 


9% 


26 


8 


4% 


District 28 















164 


52.4% 


70 


22.4% 


79 


25.2% 


68 


59.6% 


27 


23.7% 


19 


16.7% 


11 


44.0% 


9 


36.0% 


5 


20 . 0% 


113 


47.1% 


30 


12.5% 


97 


40.4% 


54 


32.0% 


34 


20.1% 


81 


47.9% 



Polk 11 44.0% 9 36.0% 5 20.0% 25 247.9 216.0 

Rutherford 113 47.1% 30 12.5% 97 40.4% 240 338.8 229.0 

Transylvania 54 32.0% 34 20.1% 81 47.9% 169 448.6 335.0 

District Totals 410 47.6% 170 19.7% 281 32.6% 861 307.5 215.0 



District 30 




















Cherokee 


35 


57.4% 


11 


18.0% 


15 


24 . 6% 


61 


278.2 


129.0 


Clay 


4 


66.7% 


4 


66.7% 


9 


150.0% 


6 


431.1 


375.0 


Graham 


28 


87.5% 


4 


12.5% 





0.0% 


32 


101.5 


98.5 


Haywood 


122 


52.4% 


59 


25 . 3% 


52 


22.3% 


233 


279.0 


173.0 


Jackson 


51 


62.2% 


20 


24.4% 


11 


13.4% 


82 


194.8 


117.5 


Macon 


48 


53.3% 


17 


18.9% 


25 


27.8% 


90 


298.0 


165.0 


Swain 


31 


57.4% 


9 


16.7% 


14 


25.9% 


34 


289.4 


148.5 


District Totals 


319 


56.1% 


124 


21.8% 


126 


22.1% 


569 


265.4 


152.0 


State Totals 


15,054 


55.6% 


5,254 


19.4% 


6,787 


25.0% 


27,095 


268.8 


143.0 



156 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 







rtgca 










Total 
Disposed 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Mediart 




<6 


% 


6-12 


% 


>12 


% 


Age (Day 


District 1 




















Camden 


21 


84.0% 


3 


12.0% 


1 


4.0% 


25 


128.3 


87.0 


Chowan 


127 


84 . 7% 


L9 


12.7% 


4 


2.7% 


150 


89.1 


34.5 


Currituck 


62 


62.0% 


26 


26.0% 


12 


12.0% 


100 


190.0 


127.0 


Dare 


99 


76.7% 


14 


10.9% 


16 


12.4% 


129 


150.0 


85.0 


Gates 


51 


70.8% 


12 


16.7% 


9 


12.5% 


72 


162.2 


65.0 


Pasquotank 


246 


80.7% 


25 


8.2% 


34 


11.1% 


305 


137.0 


75.0 


Perquimans 


51 


70.8% 


9 


12.5% 


12 


16.7% 


72 


181.2 


76.0 



District Totals 



657 



77.0% 



108 



12.7% 



10.3% 



853 



142.3 



73.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 



276 


79.3% 


18 


5.2% 


54 


15.5% 


45 


84.9% 


2 


3.8% 


6 


11.3% 


261 


84 . 2% 


16 


5.2% 


33 


10.6% 


22 


88.0% 


3 


12.0% 





0.0% 


95 


77.9% 


19 


15.6% 


8 


6.6% 



699 



81.5% 



58 



6.8% 



101 



11.8% 



348 
53 

310 
25 

122 

858 



163.5 
169.5 
207.5 
60.6 
142.3 

173.7 



47.0 
61.0 
22.0 
34.0 
84.0 

45.0 



District 3 



Carteret 






424 


53.0% 


71 


8.9% 


305 


38.1% 


800 


436.2 


144.0 


Craven 






704 


56 . 5% 


120 


9.6% 


423 


33.9% 


1,247 


380.8 


111.0 


Pamlico 






58 


47.9% 


6 


5.0% 


57 


47.1% 


121 


423.0 


325.0 


Pitt 






620 


59.3% 


83 


7.9% 


343 


32.8% 


1,046 


371.7 


88.0 


District 


Totals 


1,806 


56.2% 


280 


8.7% 


1,128 


35.1% 


3,214 


393.2 


111.0 


District 


4 























Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 



308 

58 

1,122 

458 



District Totals 1,946 



86.3% 
79.5% 
76.0% 
91.1% 

80.8% 



29 

10 

135 

33 

207 



8.1% 

13.7% 

9.1% 

6.6% 

8.6% 



20 

5 

219 

12 

256 



5.6% 

6.8% 

14.8% 

2.4% 

10.6% 



357 

73 

1,476 

503 

2,409 



104.0 

108. 

295. 

70. 



214.6 



46.0 

0.0 

64.0 

41.0 

55.0 



District 5 



New Hanover 


1,183 


72.9% 


129 


8.0% 


310 


19.1% 


1,622 


209.3 


60.0 


Pender 


221 


76.2% 


36 


12.4% 


33 


11.4% 


290 


144.2 


53.0 


District Totals 


1,404 


73.4% 


165 


8.6% 


343 


17.9% 


1,912 


199.5 


59.0 


District 6 




















Bertie 


216 


80.6% 


37 


13.8% 


15 


5.6% 


268 


94.6 


49.0 


Halifax 


633 


84.0% 


90 


11.9% 


31 


4.1% 


754 


86.4 


45.0 


Hertford 


237 


78.7% 


26 


8.6% 


38 


12.6% 


301 


117.5 


52.0 


Northampton 


191 


84.1% 


25 


11.0% 


11 


4.8% 


227 


93.1 


48.0 


District Totals 


1,277 


82.4% 


178 


11.5% 


95 


6.1% 


1,550 


94.8 


48.0 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


529 


80.8% 


52 


7.9% 


74 


11.3% 


655 


146.8 


51.0 


Nash 


627 


85.3% 


56 


7.6% 


52 


7.1% 


735 


114.4 


50.0 


Wilson 


625 


77.1% 


64 


7.9% 


122 


15.0% 


811 


206.0 


52.0 


District Totals 


1,781 


80.9% 


172 


7.8% 


248 


11.3% 


2,201 


157.8 


51.0 


District 8 





















Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 



127 
520 
923 



District Totals 1,570 



82 . 5% 
80.2% 
78.9% 

79.6% 



13 

66 
207 

286 



8.4% 
10.2% 
17.7% 

14.5% 



14 
62 
40 

116 



9.1% 
9.6% 
3.4% 

5.9% 



154 
648 
1,170 

1,972 



102.6 
120.5 
108.6 

112.0 



36.5 
59.0 
60.0 

57.0 



157 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 



^e> 



Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



6-12 



% 



12 



% 



Total Mean Median 

Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 



District Totals 1,228 
District 10 



212 


78.2% 


45 


16.6% 


14 


5.2% 


195 


68.9% 


59 


20.8% 


29 


10.2% 


258 


90.2% 


18 


6.3% 


10 


3.5% 


408 


85.2% 


37 


7.7% 


34 


7.1% 


155 


73.1% 


30 


14.2% 


27 


12.7% 



80.2% 



189 



12.3% 



114 



7.4% 



271 
283 
286 
479 
212 

1,531 



108.7 

142.5 

74.4 

88.1 

135.3 

105.8 



48.0 
65.0 
42.0 
39.0 
66.0 

44.0 



Wake 


2,814 


88.8% 


175 


5.5% 


180 


5.7% 


3,169 


98.4 


45.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


499 


78.0% 


109 


17.0% 


32 


5.0% 


640 


104.8 


53.5 


Johnston 


756 


83.9% 


106 


11.8% 


39 


4.3% 


901 


93.6 


48.0 


Lee 


395 


77.3% 


92 


18.0% 


24 


4.7% 


511 


104.3 


47.0 



District Totals 1,650 
District 12 



80.4% 



307 



15.0% 



95 



4.6% 



2,052 



99.7 



49.0 



Cumberland 


2,965 


70.5% 


434 


10.3% 


805 


19.1% 


4,204 


215.5 


71.0 


Hoke 


156 


91.8% 


7 


4.1% 


7 


4.1% 


170 


74.9 


12.0 


District Totals 


3,121 


71.4% 


441 


10.1% 


812 


18.6% 


4,374 


210.1 


69.0 


District 13 




















Bladen 


241 


95.3% 


2 


0.8% 


10 


4.0% 


253 


43.4 


0.0 


Brunswick 


317 


82.3% 


39 


10.1% 


29 


7.5% 


385 


118.7 


53.0 


Columbus 


514 


80.4% 


59 


9.2% 


66 


10.3% 


639 


116.5 


45.0 


District Totals 


1,072 


83.9% 


100 


7.8% 


105 


8.2% 


1,277 


102.7 


42.0 


District 14 




















Durham 


1,348 


73.4% 


158 


8.6% 


330 


18.0% 


1,836 


191.7 


59.0 



District 15A 
Alamance 



1,041 



94.8% 



51 



4.6% 



0.5% 



1,098 



64.5 



47.0 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 



District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 



217 
410 

627 



923 
294 



District Totals 1,217 
District 17A 



76.4% 
79 . 3% 

78.3% 



86.7% 
85.2% 

86.4% 



20 
52 

72 



79 
37 

116 



7.0% 
10.1% 

9.0% 



7.4% 
10.7% 

8.2% 



47 
55 

102 



62 
14 

76 



16.5% 
10.6% 

12.7% 



5.8% 
4.1% 

5.4% 



284 
517 

801 



1,064 
345 

1,409 



151.3 
127.6 

136.0 



83.9 
94.2 

86.4 



42.5 
58.0 

55.0 



42.5 
41.0 

42.0 



Caswell 


95 


61.7% 


28 


18.2% 


31 


20.1% 


154 


206.0 


71.0 


Rockingham 


673 


82.8% 


90 


11.1% 


50 


6.2% 


813 


97.7 


44.0 


District Totals 


768 


79.4% 


118 


12.2% 


81 


8.4% 


967 


114.9 


45.0 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


151 


75.5% 


32 


16.0% 


17 


8.5% 


200 


124.3 


68.5 


Surry 


433 


89.5% 


33 


6.8% 


18 


3.7% 


484 


87.6 


48.0 



District Totals 



384 



85.4% 



65 



9.5% 



35 



5.1% 



684 



98.3 



50.0 



158 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



<6 



6-12 



% 



>12 



Total 
Disposed 



Mean Median 

Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 18 



Guilford 


3,216 


85.1% 


225 


6.0% 


338 


8.9% 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


751 


79.3% 


63 


6.7% 


133 


14.0% 


Rowan 


794 


82.5% 


73 


7.6% 


95 


9.9% 


District Totals 


1,545 


80.9% 


136 


7.1% 


228 


11.9% 


District 19B 














Montgomery 


144 


91.1% 


12 


7.6% 


2 


1.3% 


Randolph 


579 


82.5% 


82 


11.7% 


41 


5.8% 


District Totals 


723 


84.1% 


94 


10.9% 


43 


5.0% 


District 20 















Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 



180 
402 
343 
293 
432 



District Totals 1,650 
District 21 



Forsyth 



2,308 



82.6% 
78.2% 
80.7% 
90.7% 
83.9% 

82 . 7% 



86 . 9% 



16 
40 
18 
16 

23 

113 



176 



7.3% 
7.8% 
4.2% 
5.0% 
4.5% 

5.7% 



6.6% 



22 

72 
64 
14 
60 

232 



171 



10.1% 
14.0% 
15.1% 
4.3% 
11.7% 

11.6% 



6.4% 



3,779 



947 
962 

1,909 



158 
702 

860 



218 
514 
425 
323 
515 

1,995 



2,655 



113.5 



135.4 
122.0 

128.7 



82.2 
100.6 

97.3 



114.2 
191.1 
153.5 
77.6 
132.3 

141.1 



102.8 



49.0 



51.0 
49.0 

50.0 



50.5 
48.0 

49.0 



44.5 
63.0 
46.0 
40.0 
41.0 

48.0 



57.0 



District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 



148 
747 
147 
636 



District Totals 1,678 
District 23 



82.2% 
83.7% 
80.3% 
83.0% 

83 . 0% 



16 
68 
13 
73 

170 



8.9% 
7.6% 
7.1% 
9.5% 

8.4% 



16 
78 
23 
57 

174 



8.9% 

8.7% 

12.6% 

7.4% 

8.6% 



Alleghany 




81 


95.3% 


3 


3.5% 


1 


1.2% 


Ashe 




144 


86.2% 


14 


8.4% 


9 


5.4% 


Wilkes 




382 


87.8% 


44 


10.1% 


9 


2.1% 


Yadkin 




181 


89.2% 


14 


6.9% 


8 


3.9% 


District 


Totals 


788 


88.5% 


75 


8.4% 


27 


3.0% 


District 24 
















Avery 




72 


72.7% 


11 


11.1% 


16 


16.2% 


Madison 




11 


55.0% 


7 


35.0% 


2 


10.0% 


Mitchell 




68 


61.3% 


24 


21.6% 


19 


17.1% 


Watauga 




211 


75.6% 


46 


16.5% 


22 


7.9% 


Yancey 




94 


83.2% 


10 


8.8% 


9 


8.0% 


District 


Totals 


456 


73.3% 


98 


15.8% 


68 


10.9% 


District 25 
















Burke 




586 


83.1% 


51 


7.2% 


68 


9.6% 


Caldwell 




623 


72.5% 


63 


7.3% 


173 


20.1% 


Catawba 




1,028 


84.5% 


84 


6.9% 


104 


8.6% 


District 


Totals 


2,237 


80.5% 


198 


7.1% 


345 


12.4% 


District 26 

















Mecklenburg 



4,540 



84 . 9% 



265 



5.0% 



545 



10.2% 



180 
893 
183 
766 

2,022 



85 
167 
435 
203 

890 



99 

20 

111 

279 

113 

622 



705 

859 

1,216 

2,780 
5,350 



128.9 
108.7 
120.7 
100.9 

108.6 



64.8 

100.2 

75.4 

79.6 

80.0 



159.7 
174.0 
208.9 
137.7 
121.4 

152.1 



128.7 
227.0 
106.0 

149.1 



107.0 



44.0 
50.0 
50.0 
46.0 

48.0 



47.0 
42.0 
42.0 
47.0 

42.0 



69.0 
155.5 
92.0 
88.0 
55.0 

81.0 



42.0 
50.0 
43.5 

46.0 



49.0 



159 



AGES OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) .... 
_ Total Mean Median 

<6 % 6-12 % >12 % Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 

District 27A 

Gaston 1,922 76.8% 227 9.1% 355 14.2% 2,504 144.2 49.0 

District ^7B 

971 101.8 45.0 

408 86.5 50.0 

1,379 97.3 46.0 

1,969 119.2 60.0 

578 189.9 55.0 

317 103.8 48.0 

84 97.0 41.0 

543 128.9 43.0 

227 104.4 49.0 

1,749 139.8 48.0 

163 124.5 67.0 

6 300.8 75.0 

54 159.8 71.5 

464 286.5 105.0 

198 138.0 57.0 

190 290.0 87.5 

116 302.4 95.5 

District Totals 786 65.7% 159 13.3% 252 21.1% 1,197 236.4 79.0 

State Totals 52,462 79.7% 5,915 9.0% 7,450 11.3% 65,827 146.6 53.0 



Cleveland 


787 


81.1% 


133 


13.7% 


51 


5.3% 


Lincoln 


346 


84 . 8% 


53 


13.0% 


9 


2.2% 


District Totals 


1,133 


82.2% 


186 


13.5% 


60 


4.4% 


District 28 














Buncombe 


1,463 


74.3% 


400 


20.3% 


106 


5.4% 


District 29 














Henderson 


423 


73.2% 


58 


10.0% 


97 


16.8% 


McDowell 


264 


83.3% 


33 


10.4% 


20 


6.3% 


Polk 


69 


82 . 1% 


8 


9.5% 


7 


8.3% 


Rutherford 


459 


84.5% 


29 


5.3% 


55 


10.1% 


Transylvania 


192 


84.6% 


19 


8.4% 


16 


7.0% 


District Totals 


1,407 


80.4% 


147 


8.4% 


195 


11.1% 


District 30 














Cherokee 


127 


77.9% 


23 


14.1% 


13 


8.0% 


Clay 


7 


116.7% 





0.0% 


5 


83.3% 


Graham 


39 


72.2% 


10 


18.5% 


5 


9.3% 


Haywood 


267 


57.5% 


63 


13.6% 


134 


28.9% 


Jackson 


154 


77.8% 


21 


10.6% 


23 


11.6% 


Macon 


123 


64.7% 


25 


13.2% 


42 


22.1% 


Swain 


69 


59.5% 


17 


14.7% 


30 


25.9% 



160 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



<9 



% 



9-18 



% 



>U 



2 


25.0% 


3 


37.5% 


3 


37.5% 


49 


68.1% 


9 


12.5% 


14 


19.4% 


47 


82.5% 


8 


14.0% 


2 


3.5% 


83 


66.4% 


36 


28.8% 


6 


4.8% 


10 


83.3% 


1 


8.3% 


1 


8.3% 


65 


64.4% 


26 


25.7% 


10 


9.9% 


18 


36 . 7% 


22 


44.9% 


9 


18.4% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


Pending 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


8 


417.4 


406.0 


72 


313.5 


153.5 


57 


188.5 


164.0 


125 


228.9 


164.0 


12 


195.9 


146.0 


101 


216.6 


146.0 


49 


367.5 


374.0 



District Totals 



274 



64.6% 



105 



24.8% 



45 



10.6% 



424 



253.5 



169.5 



District 2 



Beaufort 




65 


58.0% 


32 


28.6% 


15 


13.4% 


112 


313.0 


200.5 


Hyde 




12 


46.2% 


7 


26 . 9% 


7 


26.9% 


26 


434.8 


323.0 


Martin 




13 


34 . 2% 


11 


28.9% 


14 


36.8% 


38 


602.0 


365.0 


Tyrrell 




12 


63.2% 


4 


21.1% 


3 


15.8% 


19 


398.5 


102.0 


Washington 




22 


75.9% 


5 


17.2% 


2 


6.9% 


29 


210.4 


101.0 


District 


Totals 


124 


55.4% 


59 


26.3% 


41 


18.3% 


224 


370.1 


209.0 


District 3 






















Carteret 




90 


80.4% 


16 


14.3% 


6 


5.4% 


112 


174.0 


118.5 


Craven 




244 


82.4% 


44 


14.9% 


8 


2.7% 


296 


149.2 


97.5 


Pamlico 




15 


71.4% 


5 


23.8% 


1 


4.8% 


21 


201.0 


154.0 


Pitt 




239 


88.8% 


27 


10.0% 


3 


1.1% 


269 


123.6 


80.0 


District 


Totals 


588 


84.2% 


92 


13.2% 


18 


2.6% 


698 


144.8 


98.0 


District 4 






















Duplin 




66 


64 . 7% 


18 


17.6% 


18 


17.6% 


102 


332.2 


196.5 


Jones 




23 


57.5% 


10 


25.0% 


7 


17.5% 


40 


414.9 


187.5 


Onslow 




243 


34.3% 


189 


26.7% 


277 


39.1% 


709 


522.0 


441.0 


Sampson 




71 


68.3% 


16 


15.4% 


17 


16.3% 


104 


287.8 


164.0 


District 


Totals 


403 


42.2% 


233 


24.4% 


319 


33.4% 


955 


471.7 


353.0 


District 5 






















New Hanover 




731 


64.7% 


232 


20.5% 


166 


14.7% 


1,129 


272.5 


150.0 


Pender 




48 


57.1% 


14 


16.7% 


22 


26.2% 


84 


420.5 


226.5 


District 


Totals 


779 


64.2% 


246 


20 . 3% 


188 


15.5% 


1,213 


282.7 


154.0 


District 6 






















Bertie 




33 


94 . 3% 


2 


5.7% 





0.0% 


35 


110.5 


77.0 


Halifax 




61 


82.4% 


11 


14.9% 


2 


2.7% 


74 


155.9 


87.5 


Hertford 




81 


69.8% 


34 


29.3% 


1 


0.9% 


116 


195.8 


165.0 


Northampton 


13 


81.3% 


3 


18.8% 





0.0% 


16 


128.9 


71.0 


District 


Totals 


188 


78.0% 


50 


20.7% 


3 


1.2% 


241 


166.7 


117.0 


District 7 























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 



110 
179 

100 



75.9% 
76.2% 
54.1% 



20 

29 
34 



13.8% 
12.3% 
18.4% 



15 
27 

51 



10.3% 
11.5% 
27.6% 



145 
235 
185 



239.7 

241.1 
492.8 



108.0 
126.0 
244.0 



District Totals 



389 



68 . 8% 



83 



14.7% 



9 3 



16.5% 



565 



323.1 



131.0 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



9 


81.8% 


2 


18.2% 





0.0% 


192 


67.4% 


85 


29.8% 


8 


2.8% 


325 


64.2% 


149 


29.4% 


32 


6.3% 


526 


65.6% 


236 


29.4% 


40 


5.0% 



11 

285 
506 

802 



134.8 
207.2 
228.1 

219.4 



158.0 
194.0 
193.5 

192.0 



161 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


ii 
52 
41 
64 
25 


55.9% 
74.3% 
60.3% 
64.0% 
71.4% 


12 

16 
16 

26 
6 


20.3% 
22.9% 
23.5% 
26.0% 
17.1% 


14 

2 

11 

10 

4 


23.7% 
2.9% 
16.2% 
10.0% 
11.4% 


59 
70 
68 
100 
35 


403.2 
210.2 
331.0 
246.7 
241.2 


222.0 
166.5 
179.5 
168.0 
171.0 


District Totals 


215 


64.8% 


76 


22 . 9% 


41 


12.3% 


332 


283.5 


171.5 


District 10 
Wake 


1,998 


69.5% 


692 


24.1% 


183 


6.4% 


2,873 


227.6 


138.0 


District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 


123 
209 
132 


87.2% 
87.1% 
83.0% 


16 
26 

22 


11.3% 
10.8% 
13.8% 


2 

5 
5 


1.4% 
2.1% 
3.1% 


141 
240 
159 


132.0 
141.1 
176.6 


95.0 

97.5 

123.0 


District Totals 


464 


85 . 9% 


54 


11.9% 


12 


2.2% 


540 


149.2 


107.0 


District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 


509 
36 


61.5% 
58.1% 


180 
10 


21.8% 
16.1% 


138 
16 


16.7% 
25.8% 


827 
62 


270.3 
422.1 


203.0 
181.5 


District Totals 


545 


61.3% 


190 


21.4% 


154 


17.3% 


889 


280.9 


202.0 


District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


99 

231 

184 


71.2% 
44.5% 
50.1% 


27 
145 
119 


19.4% 
27.9% 
32.4% 


13 

143 

64 


9.4% 
27.6% 

17.4% 


139 
519 
367 


236.0 
410.1 
318.1 


164.0 
321.0 
266.0 


District Totals 


514 


50.1% 


291 


28.4% 


220 


21.5% 


1,025 


353.5 


269.0 


District 14 

Durham 


758 


55.4% 


273 


20.0% 


337 


24.6% 


1,368 


325.2 


231.5 


District 15A 
Alamance 


192 


71.9% 


67 


25.1% 


8 


3.0% 


267 


185.3 


115.0 


District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 


33 

192 


66.0% 
69.6% 


9 

79 


18.0% 
28.6% 


8 
5 


16.0% 

1.8% 


50 
276 


245.5 
189.3 


99.5 
145.0 


District Totals 


225 


69.0% 


88 


27.0% 


13 


4.0% 


326 


197.9 


135.5 


District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 


286 
69 


65.1% 
73.4% 


96 

13 


21.9% 
13.8% 


57 

12 


13.0% 
12.8% 


439 
94 


271.4 
237.9 


168.0 
145.5 


District Totals 


355 


66.6% 


109 


20.5% 


69 


12.9% 


533 


265.5 


167.0 


District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 


19 

125 


52 . 8% 
74 . 9% 


10 
36 


27.8% 
21.6% 


7 
6 


19.4% 
3.6% 


36 
167 


269.3 
171.1 


192.0 
105.0 



District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



144 



70.9% 



46 



22.7% 



26 


76.5% 


8 


23.5% 


35 


75.4% 


38 


21.2% 


61 


75.6% 


46 


21.6% 



13 



6.4% 



0.0% 
3.4% 

2.8% 



203 



34 
179 

213 



188.5 



187.2 
179.8 

180.9 



117.0 



132.5 
147.0 

147.0 



162 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 



Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 





<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


District 18 














Guilford 


1,573 


61.1% 


776 


30.1% 


226 


8.8% 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 


250 


65.3% 


120 


31.3% 


13 


3.4% 


Rowan 


289 


69.1% 


121 


28.9% 


8 


1.9% 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



2,575 



383 
418 



257.2 



200.5 
201.6 



189.0 



137.0 
166.0 



District Totals 
District 19B 



539 



67.3% 



241 



30.1% 



21 



2.6% 



801 



201.1 



157.0 



Montgomery 


54 


53.5% 


30 


29.7% 


17 


16.8% 


101 


345.6 


242.0 


Randolph 


80 


71.4% 


24 


21.4% 


8 


7.1% 


112 


197.0 


120.0 


District Totals 


134 


62.9% 


54 


25.4% 


25 


11.7% 


213 


267.5 


168.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


46 


52.3% 


19 


21.6% 


23 


26.1% 


88 


358.1 


250.0 


Moore 


122 


28.3% 


136 


31.6% 


173 


40.1% 


431 


515.4 


430.0 


Richmond 


96 


40.7% 


98 


41.5% 


42 


17.8% 


236 


361.2 


307.0 


Stanly 


100 


35.6% 


41 


14.6% 


140 


49.8% 


281 


747.5 


542.0 


Union 


187 


49.6% 


97 


25.7% 


93 


24.7% 


377 


362.4 


277.0 


District Totals 


551 


39.0% 


391 


27.7% 


471 


33.3% 


1,413 


485.2 


354.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


1,106 


61.6% 


380 


21.2% 


309 


17.2% 


1,795 


287.8 


166.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


31 


81.6% 


6 


15.8% 


1 


2.6% 


38 


143.7 


72.0 


Davidson 


168 


67.5% 


69 


27.7% 


12 


4.8% 


249 


213.7 


165.0 


Davie 


47 


62 . 7% 


20 


26.7% 


8 


10.7% 


75 


275.3 


236.0 


Iredell 


289 


89.2% 


25 


7.7% 


10 


3.1% 


324 


133.4 


75.0 


District Totals 


535 


78.0% 


120 


17.5% 


31 


4.5% 


686 


178.6 


129.0 


District 23 





















Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 



35 

29 

182 

35 



89.7% 
67.4% 
83.5% 

50.7% 



2 
13 
22 
15 



5.1% 
30.2% 
10.1% 
21.7% 



2 
1 

14 
19 



5.1% 

2.3% 

6.4% 

27.5% 



39 

43 

218 

69 



136.3 
207.5 
168.4 
497.6 



84.0 
153.0 

86.0 
263.0 



District Totals 



281 



76.2% 



52 



14.1% 



36 



9.8% 



369 



231.1 



111.0 



District 24 



Avery 




5 7 


66.3% 


20 


23.3% 


9 


10.5% 


86 


256.3 


165.0 


Madison 




40 


59.7% 


20 


29.9% 


7 


10.4% 


67 


271.6 


216.0 


Mitchell 




87 


90.6% 


6 


6.3% 


3 


3.1% 


96 


119.6 


70.0 


Watauga 




146 


70.2% 


28 


13.5% 


34 


16.3% 


208 


227.4 


103.0 


Yancey 




13 


86.7% 





0.0% 


2 


13.3% 


15 


178.9 


56.0 


District Totals 


343 


72.7% 


74 


15.7% 


55 


11.7% 


472 


215.5 


95.5 


District 


25 





















Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



141 
105 
284 



66.2% 
69.5% 
69.1% 



34 
39 
94 



16.0% 
25.8% 
22.9% 



38 

7 

33 



17.8% 
4.6% 
8.0% 



213 
151 

411 



321.7 
192.5 
213.0 



192.0 
145.0 
150.0 



District Totals 



530 



68.4% 



167 



21.5% 



10.1% 



775 



238.9 



154.0 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 



2,480 



74.0% 



580 



17.3% 



292 



8.7% 



3,352 



201.9 



126.0 



163 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Months) 



9-18 



>11 



Total Mean Median 

Pending Age (Days) Age (Days) 



District 27A 
Gaston 



261 



72.1% 



64 



17.7% 



37 



10.2% 



362 



205.1 



124.0 



District 27B 



Cleveland 


73 


93.6% 


5 


6.4% 





0.0% 


78 


111.4 


102.0 


Lincoln 


48 


96.0% 


2 


4.0% 





0.0% 


50 


107.0 


93.0 


District Totals 


121 


94 . 5% 


7 


5.5% 





0.0% 


128 


109.7 


98.5 


District 28 





















Buncombe 



600 



89.8% 



59 



8.8% 



1.3% 



668 



131.8 



101.0 



District 29 



Henderson 


155 


52.7% 


82 


27.9% 


57 


19.4% 


294 


325.5 


256.0 


McDowell 


55 


74.3% 


11 


14.9% 


8 


10.8% 


74 


236.0 


139.5 


Polk 


13 


59.1% 


3 


13.6% 


6 


27 . 3% 


22 


301.6 


204.0 


Rutherford 


3 7 


57.6% 


29 


29 . 3% 


13 


13.1% 


99 


258.7 


224.0 


Transylvania 


143 


60.1% 


70 


29.4% 


25 


10.5% 


238 


239.3 


103.5 


District Totals 


423 


58.2% 


195 


26.8% 


109 


15.0% 


727 


278.3 


209.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


20 


90.9% 


1 


4.5% 


1 


4.5% 


22 


111.5 


56.5 


Clay 


15 


250.0% 


8 


133.3% 





0.0% 


6 


183.0 


179.0 


Graham 


13 


72.2% 


4 


22.2% 


1 


5.6% 


18 


206.8 


188.0 


Haywood 


55 


64.0% 


21 


24.4% 


10 


11.6% 


86 


270.3 


215.0 


Jackson 


65 


82.3% 


10 


12.7% 


4 


5.1% 


79 


171.5 


77.0 


Macon 


31 


50 . 8% 


19 


31.1% 


11 


18.0% 


61 


345.7 


243.0 


Swain 


21 


53.8% 


11 


28.2% 


7 


17.9% 


39 


407.7 


249.0 


District Totals 


220 


67.1% 


74 


22.6% 


34 


10.4% 


328 


256.6 


154.0 


State Totals 


18,539 


65.4% 


6,280 


22.1% 


3,536 


12.5% 


28,355 


261.6 


159.0 



164 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 1 




















Camden 


6 


66.7% 


3 


33.3% 





0.0% 


9 


168.1 


120.0 


Chowan 


41 


60.3% 


12 


17.6% 


15 


22.1% 


68 


349.8 


146.0 


Currituck 


32 


60.4% 


13 


24.5% 


8 


15.1% 


53 


272.6 


243.0 


Dare 


131 


72.4% 


26 


14.4% 


24 


13.3% 


181 


218.8 


111.0 


Gates 


8 


61.5% 


3 


23.1% 


2 


15.4% 


13 


246.8 


178.0 


Pasquotank 


108 


67.9% 


20 


12.6% 


31 


19.5% 


159 


236.2 


108.0 


Perquimans 


22 


73.3% 


6 


20.0% 


2 


6.7% 


30 


175.7 


86.5 



District Totals 



348 



67.8% 



83 



16.2% 



82 



16.0% 



513 



244.4 



123.0 



District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 



87 


54.0% 


31 


19.3% 


43 


26.7% 


39 


86.7% 


2 


4.4% 


4 


8.9% 


67 


65.0% 


11 


10.7% 


25 


24.3% 


6 


66.7% 


2 


22.2% 


1 


11.1% 


24 


86.1% 


8 


5.6% 


12 


8.3% 



161 

45 

103 

9 

144 



360.1 
232.6 
551.0 
211.6 
162.6 



232.0 
203.0 
118.0 
108.0 
76.0 



District Totals 



323 



69 . 9% 



54 



11.7% 



18.4% 



462 



325.8 



120.0 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 



245 


81.9% 


34 


11.4% 


20 


6.7% 


695 


82.9% 


96 


11.5% 


47 


5.6% 


21 


65.6% 


7 


21.9% 


4 


12.5% 


604 


89 . 5% 


55 


8.1% 


16 


2.4% 



299 
838 

32 
675 



170.0 
169.2 
323.5 
130.4 



89.0 

87.5 

167.5 

85.0 



District Totals 1,565 



84.9% 



192 



10.4% 



87 



4.7% 



1,844 



157.8 



87.5 



District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 



153 


80.1% 


30 


15.7% 


8 


4.2% 


56 


87.5% 


2 


3.1% 


6 


9.4% 


387 


81.8% 


58 


12.3% 


28 


5.9% 


169 


86 . 2% 


13 


6.6% 


14 


7.1% 



191 

64 
473 
196 



176.1 
179.0 
189.4 
149.6 



92.0 

64.5 

106.0 

67.0 



District Totals 



765 



82.8% 



103 



11.1% 



56 



6.1% 



924 



177.5 



88.0 



District 5 




















New Hanover 


1,273 


69.8% 


279 


15.3% 


272 


14.9% 


1,824 


261.7 


139.0 


Pender 


51 


41.8% 


46 


37.7% 


25 


20.5% 


122 


401.5 


340.0 



District Totals 1,324 



68.0% 



325 



16.7% 



297 



15.3% 



1,946 



270.5 



142.0 



District 6 




















Bertie 


54 


83 . 1% 


10 


15.4% 


1 


1.5% 


65 


142.7 


73.0 


Halifax 


163 


71.5% 


59 


25.9% 


6 


2.6% 


228 


189.1 


161.0 


Hertford 


117 


82.4% 


20 


14.1% 


5 


3.5% 


142 


162.6 


99.5 


Northampton 


45 


86.5% 


5 


9.6% 


2 


3.8% 


52 


152.5 


100.0 


District Totals 


379 


77.8% 


94 


19.3% 


14 


2.9% 


487 


171.3 


118.0 


District 7 




















Edgecombe 


198 


68.8% 


46 


16.0% 


44 


15.3% 


288 


300.7 


99.5 


Nash 


408 


72.0% 


80 


14.1% 


79 


13.9% 


567 


290.4 


116.0 


Wilson 


270 


64.4% 


74 


17.7% 


75 


17.9% 


419 


360.9 


140.0 


District Totals 


876 


68.8% 


200 


15.7% 


198 


15.5% 


1,274 


315.9 


121.0 


District 8 




















Greene 


16 


66 . 7% 


8 


33.3% 





0.0% 


24 


165.1 


65.0 


Lenoir 


399 


82.1% 


68 


14.0% 


19 


3.9% 


486 


145.4 


69.0 


Wayne 


473 


69.9% 


177 


26.1% 


27 


4.0% 


677 


184.3 


111.0 


District Totals 


888 


74.8% 


253 


21.3% 


46 


3.9% 


1,187 


168.0 


89.0 



165 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 


Mean 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Disposed 


Age (Days) 


Age (Days) 


District 9 




















Franklin 


h5 


70.7% 


19 


20.7% 


8 


8.7% 


92 


247.7 


168.5 


Granville 


91 


68.9% 


30 


22.7% 


11 


8.3% 


132 


236.1 


177.0 


Person 


72 


78.3% 


13 


14.1% 


7 


7.6% 


92 


199.2 


118.0 


Vance 


133 


71.9% 


35 


18.9% 


17 


9.2% 


185 


242.9 


151.0 


Warren 


40 


74.1% 


10 


18.5% 


4 


7.4% 


54 


192.1 


96.5 


District Totals 


401 


72.3% 


107 


19.3% 


47 


8.5% 


555 


229.9 


151.0 


District 10 




















Wake 


3,352 


84 . 9% 


497 


12.6% 


99 


2.5% 


3,948 


141.0 


80.0 


District 11 




















Harnett 


344 


82.3% 


71 


17.0% 


3 


0.7% 


418 


154.4 


128.5 


Johnston 


458 


80 . 5% 


96 


16.9% 


15 


2.6% 


569 


156.8 


80.0 


Lee 


300 


76.5% 


84 


21.4% 


8 


2.0% 


392 


175.9 


147.0 



District Totals 1,102 
District 12 



Cumberland 
Hoke 



852 
83 



79.9% 



68.1% 
92.2% 



251 



97 
5 



18.2% 



7.8% 
5.6% 



26 



302 
2 



1.9% 



24.1% 
2.2% 



1,379 



1,251 
90 



161.5 



287.3 
108.1 



107.0 



110.0 
71.0 



District Totals 

District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 

Durham 



935 



263 
270 
287 

820 



912 



69.7% 



75.8% 
66.8% 
68.0% 

69.9% 



63.4% 



102 



52 
82 
57 

191 



169 



7.6% 



15.0% 
20.3% 
13.5% 

16.3% 



11.8% 



304 



32 
52 

78 

162 



357 



22.7% 



9.2% 
12.9% 
18.5% 

13.8% 



24.8% 



1,341 

347 

404 
422 

1,173 
1,438 



275.2 



182.0 
267.2 
241.8 

232.9 



295.0 



105.0 



64.0 
127.0 
112.0 

99.0 



131.0 



District 15A 
Alamance 



561 



90.0% 



44 



7.1% 



18 



2.9% 



623 



127.6 



88.0 



District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 



District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 



54 
396 

450 



623 
128 

751 



52.4% 
76.7% 

72.7% 



72.5% 
77.6% 

73.3% 



20 



108 



158 
23 

181 



19.4% 
17.1% 

17.4% 



18.4% 
13.9% 

17.7% 



29 
32 

61 



78 
14 

92 



28.2% 
6.2% 

9.9% 



9.1% 
8.5% 

9.0% 



103 
516 

619 



859 
165 

1,024 



359.7 
195.8 

223.1 



203.7 
202.2 

203.4 



202.0 
114.0 

118.0 



88.0 
65.0 

83.0 



Caswell 


'il 


67.4% 


12 


26.1% 


3 


6.5% 


46 


198.2 


144.5 


Rockingham 


261 


74.6% 


80 


22.9% 


9 


2.6% 


350 


171.1 


84.0 


District Totals 


292 


73.7% 


92 


23.2% 


12 


3.0% 


396 


174.2 


85.5 


District 17B 




















Stokes 


62 


64.6% 


23 


24.0% 


11 


11.5% 


96 


264.3 


155.0 


Surry 


320 


82.9% 


41 


10.6% 


25 


6.5% 


386 


174.3 


90.0 



District Totals 



382 



79.3% 



64 



13.3% 



36 



7.5% 



482 



192.3 



99.0 



166 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 

















Total 
Disposed 


Mean 
Age (Days) 


Median 




<9 


% 


9-18 


% 


>18 


% 


Age (Days) 


District 18 




















Guilford 


2,790 


74.7% 


557 


14.9% 


388 


10.4% 


3,735 


206.0 


91.0 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


206 


61.5% 


87 


26.0% 


42 


12.5% 


335 


257.4 


137.0 


Rowan 


310 


57.8% 


102 


19.0% 


124 


23.1% 


536 


288.4 


167.0 


District Totals 


516 


59.2% 


189 


21.7% 


166 


19.1% 


871 


276.4 


154.0 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 


205 


89.5% 


12 


5.2% 


12 


5.2% 


229 


148.7 


90.0 


Randolph 


234 


80.1% 


36 


12.3% 


22 


7.5% 


292 


155.7 


64.0 


District Totals 


439 


84 . 3% 


48 


9.2% 


34 


6.5% 


521 


152.6 


78.0 


District 20 




















Anson 


54 


68.4% 


10 


12.7% 


15 


19.0% 


79 


245.7 


141.0 


Moore 


177 


62 . 8% 


32 


11.3% 


73 


25.9% 


282 


413.0 


178.5 


Richmond 


120 


49.8% 


16 


6.6% 


105 


43.6% 


241 


382.1 


283.0 


Stanly 


275 


90.8% 


16 


5.3% 


12 


4.0% 


303 


138.4 


84.0 


Union 


213 


67 . 2% 


53 


16.7% 


51 


16.1% 


317 


272.2 


117.0 


District Totals 


839 


68.7% 


127 


10.4% 


256 


20.9% 


1,222 


291.5 


119.0 


District 21 




















Forsyth 


2,057 


82.5% 


315 


12.6% 


122 


4.9% 


2,494 


168.8 


93.0 


District 22 




















Alexander 


66 


86.8% 


8 


10.5% 


2 


2.6% 


76 


147.9 


71.0 


Davidson 


339 


79.4% 


66 


15.5% 


22 


5.2% 


427 


162.6 


85.0 


Davie 


80 


65.6% 


36 


29.5% 


6 


4.9% 


122 


217.7 


130.0 


Iredell 


464 


75.8% 


127 


20.8% 


21 


3.4% 


612 


173.9 


96.0 


District Totals 


949 


76.7% 


237 


19.2% 


51 


4.1% 


1,237 


172.7 


90.0 


District 23 




















Alleghany 


79 


83.2% 


12 


12.6% 


4 


4.2% 


95 


165.6 


140.0 


Ashe 


41 


66.1% 


12 


19.4% 


9 


14.5% 


62 


235.2 


95.0 


Wilkes 


476 


88.3% 


52 


9.6% 


11 


2.0% 


539 


141.0 


85.0 


Yadkin 


88 


78.6% 


22 


19.6% 


2 


1.8% 


112 


199.7 


138.0 


District Totals 


684 


84 . 7% 


98 


12.1% 


26 


3.2% 


808 


159.3 


101.5 


District 24 




















Avery 


131 


85.1% 


16 


10.4% 


7 


4.5% 


154 


171.2 


102.5 


Madison 


70 


88.6% 


6 


7.6% 


3 


3.8% 


79 


122.6 


62.0 


Mitchell 


80 


86.0% 


9 


9.7% 


4 


4.3% 


93 


137.0 


74.0 


Watauga 


199 


79.0% 


39 


15.5% 


14 


5.6% 


252 


185.7 


114.5 


Yancey 


34 


87.2% 


3 


7.7% 


2 


5.1% 


39 


151.7 


89.0 


District Totals 


514 


83.3% 


73 


11.8% 


30 


4.9% 


617 


164.5 


96.0 


District 25 




















Burke 


335 


81.1% 


38 


9.2% 


40 


9.7% 


413 


223.7 


76.0 


Caldwell 


337 


83.2% 


56 


13.8% 


12 


3.0% 


405 


166.7 


117.0 


Catawba 


530 


72 . 5% 


159 


21.8% 


42 


5.7% 


■/31 


185.7 


90.0 


District Totals 


1,202 


77.6% 


253 


16.3% 


94 


6.1% 


1,549 


190.9 


93.0 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


4,986 


77.5% 


809 


12.6% 


642 


10.0% 


6,437 


199.8 


123.0 



167 



AGES OF GENERAL CIVIL AND MAGISTRATE APPEAL/TRANSFER CASES 

DISPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Months) 



Total Mean Median 



<9 % 9-18 % >18 % Disposed Age (Days) Age (Days) 

District 27A 

Gaston 486 75.3% 102 15.8% 57 8.8% 645 205.8 127.0 

District 27B 



Cleveland 


245 


88.4% 


32 


11.6% 





0.0% 


277 


141.7 


99.0 


Lincoln 


156 


91.8% 


12 


7.1% 


2 


1.2% 


170 


140.6 


111.5 


District Totals 


401 


89.7% 


44 


9.8% 


2 


0.4% 


447 


141.3 


103.0 


District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,222 


85.5% 


191 


13.4% 


17 


1.2% 


1,430 


160.2 


139.0 


District 29 




















Henderson 


205 


69.7% 


43 


14.6% 


46 


15.6% 


294 


273.3 


125.5 


McDowell 


104 


70.3% 


32 


21.6% 


12 


8.1% 


148 


209.1 


114.0 


Polk 


38 


79.2% 


5 


10.4% 


5 


10.4% 


48 


171.2 


54.0 


Rutherford 


92 


63.0% 


29 


19.9% 


25 


17.1% 


146 


251.7 


126.5 


Transylvania 


86 


53.4% 


41 


25.5% 


34 


21.1% 


161 


355.4 


200.0 


District Totals 


525 


65.9% 


150 


18.8% 


122 


15.3% 


797 


267.9 


133.0 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


44 


77.2% 


12 


21.1% 


1 


1.8% 


57 


149.8 


92.0 


Clay 


23 


76.7% 


6 


20.0% 


1 


3.3% 


30 


160.1 


90.0 


Graham 


9 


56.3% 


7 


43.8% 





0.0% 


16 


232.9 


222.5 


Haywood 


9b 


49.2% 


59 


30.3% 


40 


20.5% 


195 


371.9 


280.0 


Jackson 


124 


81.0% 


22 


14.4% 


7 


4.6% 


153 


193.4 


141.0 


Macon 


97 


59 . 5% 


22 


13.5% 


44 


27.0% 


163 


732.1 


183.0 


Swain 


24 


50.0% 


9 


18.8% 


15 


31.3% 


48 


427.9 


270.0 


District Totals 


417 


63.0% 


137 


20.7% 


108 


16.3% 


662 


391.3 


188.0 


State Totals 


34,453 


76.4% 


6,440 


14.3% 


4,194 


9.3% 


45,087 


206.1 


105.0 



168 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 







Filings 


Dispositions 


District 1 




Camden 




124 


110 


Chowan 




1,069 


1,017 


Currituck. 




246 


271 


Dare 




592 


573 


Gates 




201 


222 


Pasquotank 




919 


938 


Perquimans 




404 


375 


District 


Totals 


3,555 


3,506 


District 2 








Beaufort 




1,226 


1,209 


Hyde 




120 


119 


Martin 




978 


921 


Tyrrell 




259 


317 


Washington 




494 


528 


District 


Totals 


3,077 


3,094 


District 3 








Carteret 




1,745 


1,690 


Craven 




2,528 


2,508 


Pamlico 




262 


262 


Pitt 




3,592 


3,524 


District 


Totals 


8,127 


7,984 


District 4 








Duplin 




1,791 


1,674 


Jones 




192 


179 


Onslow 




3,789 


3,253 


Sampson 




1,437 


1,334 


District 


Totals 


7,209 


6,440 


District 5 








New Hanovei 




4,567 


4,418 


Pender 




583 


500 


District 


Totals 


5,150 


4,918 


District 6 








Bertie 




852 


845 


Halifax 




1,870 


1,860 


Hertford 




655 


660 


Northampton 


908 


947 


District 


Totals 


4,285 


4,312 


District 7 








Edgecombe 




5,646 


5,730 


Nash 




4,828 


4,436 


Wilson 




3,646 


3,615 


District 


Totals 


14,120 


13,781 


District 8 








Greene 




422 


406 


Lenoir 




2,539 


2,555 


Wayne 




3,090 


2,980 





Filings 


Dl 


sposilions 


District 9 






Franklin 


888 




841 


Granville 


1,377 




1,378 


Person 


877 




846 


Vance 


2,443 




2,095 


Warren 


760 




647 


District Totals 


6,345 




5,807 


District 10 








Wake 


12,068 




11,458 



District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 



District Totals 



6,051 



5,941 



Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 



1,484 

1,989 

982 

4,455 



10,261 
664 

10,925 



2,086 
1,411 
1,949 

5,446 



15,864 



3,252 



957 
1,376 

2,333 



5,210 
1,248 

6,458 



391 
2,645 

3,036 



486 
2,095 



District Totals 2,581 



1,469 

1,928 

976 

4,373 



9,836 
660 

10,496 



1,941 
1,610 
1,893 

5,444 
15,225 

3,456 



940 
1,353 

2,293 



5,378 
1,330 

6,708 



352 
2,673 

3,025 



471 
2,399 

2,870 



169 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 





Filings 


Dispositions 


District 18 




Guilford 


12,914 


12,122 


District 19A 






Cabarrus 


2,125 


1,988 


Rowan 


2,859 


2,769 


District Totals 


4,984 


4,757 


District 19B 






Montgomery 


1,059 


1,088 


Randolph 


1,751 


1,758 


District Totals 


2,810 


2,846 


District 20 






Anson 


1,047 


1,043 


Moore 


1,492 


1,548 


Richmond 


1,823 


1,651 


Stanly 


1,383 


1,374 


Union 


1,970 


1,997 


District Totals 


7,715 


7,613 


District 21 






Forsyth 


11,066 


10,882 


District 22 






Alexander 


542 


562 


Davidson 


2,369 


2,561 


Davie 


471 


486 


Iredell 


2,274 


2,308 


District Totals 


5,656 


5,917 


District 23 






Alleghany 


284 


266 


Ashe 


303 


316 


Wilkes 


1,923 


1,873 


Yadkin 


779 


783 



District Totals 



3,289 



District 24 




Avery 


209 


Madison 


130 


Mitchell 


191 


Watauga 


626 


Yancey 


144 



3,238 



185 
104 
186 
702 
114 





Filings 


Dispositions 


District 25 






Burke 


1,675 


1,605 


Caldwell 


1,539 


1,504 


Catawba 


2,736 


2,695 


District Totals 


5,950 


5,804 


District 26 






Mecklenburg 


27,789 


26,333 


District 27A 






Gaston 


4,463 


4,381 


District 27B 






Cleveland 


2,995 


2,966 


Lincoln 


881 


816 


District Totals 


3,876 


3,782 


District 28 






Buncombe 


4,117 


4,198 


District 29 






Henderson 


871 


832 


McDowell 


506 


519 


Polk 


220 


187 


Rutherford 


1,619 


2,117 


Transylvania 


499 


429 



District Totals 



3,715 



4,084 



District 30 








Cherokee 




283 


260 


Clay 




54 


46 


Graham 




101 


100 


Haywood 




882 


892 


Jackson 




261 


266 


Macon 




404 


442 


Swain 




78 


89 


District Totals 


2 


,063 


2,095 


State Totals 


226 


,044 


220,474 



District Totals 



1,300 



1,291 



170 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 















J 


iily 


1, 


1985 


- June 


30, 


1986 






















OFFENSES 














CONDITIONS 
















































Children 








Delinquent 




Vt 


idiscipl 


ined 












Parental 
Rights 


Grand 


Before 








Other 


Misde- 












Court for 




Cap; 


ital 


Felony 


meanor 


Total Truancy 


Other 


Total 


Dependent 


Neglected 


Ab 


used 


Pet 


itions 


Total 


First Time 


listrict 1 






































'.amden 







1 





1 













2 




3 




1 







7 


4 


Ihowan 







3 


45 


48 







1 


1 


2 




6 












57 


25 


lurrituck. 







4 


24 


28 













1 




5 




3 




1 


38 


27 


tare 










20 


20 


















2 




2 







24 


24 


laces 







1 


6 


7 













1 














2 


10 


10 


'asquotank 







32 


55 


87 













1 




7 




15 




1 


111 


44 


'erquimans 







1 


4 


5 































5 


4 


District 


Totals 





42 


154 


196 







1 


1 


7 




23 




21 




4 


252 


138 


tistrict 2 






































ieaufort 







19 


118 


137 


7 




5 


12 


5 




1 




1 







156 


63 


lyde 







1 


8 


9 













5 




8 




3 




1 


26 


12 


[artin 







32 


23 


55 


1 




2 


3 


4 




17 




2 




1 


82 


53 


'yrrell 










1 


1 































1 


4 


Jashington 







3 


21 


24 













5 




11 




1 







41 


26 



District Totals 



55 



171 



226 



15 



19 



37 



306 



158 



tistrict 3 



larteret 









28 


60 


88 


5 


9 


14 


12 


9 


6 





129 


54 


Iraven 









54 


144 


198 


5 


6 


11 


7 


11 


3 


40 


270 


161 


■amlico 












16 


16 

















2 





18 


17 


•itt 









69 


143 


212 


1 


13 


14 


27 


23 


7 


4 


287 


119 


District 


Totals 





151 


363 


514 


11 


28 


39 


46 


43 


18 


44 


704 


351 


listrict 


4 






























tuplin 









67 


27 


94 


5 


3 


8 





14 


1 


3 


120 


53 


rones 












8 


8 


2 





2 


5 


1 


1 





17 


17 


tnslow 









141 


127 


268 


6 


3 


9 


5 


31 


35 


4 


352 


154 


lampson 









3 


30 


33 





1 


1 


4 


11 


8 


11 


68 


45 


District 


Totals 





211 


192 


403 


13 


7 


20 


14 


57 


45 


18 


557 


269 


tistrict 


5 































lew Hanover 
'ender 



141 
1 



407 
45 



548 
46 



76 
8 



76 
9 



13 
1 



25 





671 

57 



216 
36 



District Totals 



142 452 



594 



84 



85 



14 



25 



728 



252 



tistrict 6 






























lertie 







1 


9 


10 











1 


5 


4 





20 


19 


lalifax 







51 


145 


196 





17 


17 


4 


38 


4 





259 


107 


lertford 







15 


31 


46 





5 


5 


4 


9 


3 





67 


48 


lorthamptor 


i 





19 


26 


45 





1 


1 


3 


6 








55 


34 


District 


Totals 





86 


211 


297 





23 


23 


12 


58 


11 





401 


208 


)istrict 7 






























Edgecombe 







48 


179 


227 


3 


7 


10 


5 


39 


20 


1 


302 


114 


lash 







55 


134 


189 





5 


5 


19 


16 


7 


14 


250 


116 


Jilson 







44 


125 


169 





5 


5 


2 


16 


10 


9 


211 


96 


District 


Totals 





147 


438 


585 


3 


17 


20 


26 


71 


37 


24 


763 


326 


)istrict 8 






























Ireene 




7 


2 


1 


10 


3 


1 


4 


7 


6 


2 





29 


18 


,enoir 







14 


101 


115 





15 


15 


10 


21 


2 


5 


168 


70 


Jayne 







53 


126 


179 


4 


17 


21 


24 


50 


23 


28 


325 


125 



District Totals 



69 228 



304 



33 



40 



41 



77 



27 



33 



522 



213 



171 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 









De 


linquent 






U« 


discipl 


ned 








Parental 
Rights 


Grand 


Children 
Before 








Other 


Misde- 












Court for 




Cap 


tal 


Fe 


lony 


meanor 


Total 


Tru 


ancy 


Other 


Total 


Dependent 


Neglected 


Abused 


Petitions 


Total 


First Time 


District 9 


































Franklin 









16 


35 


51 




2 


8 


10 


3 


18 


9 





91 


52 


Granville 









32 


58 


90 




1 


3 


4 


3 


5 


1 


1 


104 


51 


Person 









8 


13 


21 




I 


3 


4 


1 


7 


2 





35 


32 


Vance 









52 


49 


101 




6 


6 


12 


2 


3 








118 


47 


Warren 









6 


2 


8 




1 





1 


4 


4 


3 





20 


13 



District Totals 114 157 
District 10 



271 



11 



20 



31 



13 



37 



15 



368 



195 



Wake 





321 


475 


796 


31 


18 


49 


32 


35 


20 


30 


962 


405 


District 11 




























Harnett 





40 


76 


116 





2 


2 


9 


9 


9 


6 


151 


52 


Johnston 





3 7 


53 


90 





3 


3 


5 


7 


2 


7 


114 


72 


Lee 





39 


52 


91 











3 


11 


9 


1 


115 


62 


District Totals 





116 


181 


297 





5 


5 


17 


27 


20 


14 


380 


186 


District 12 




























Cumberland 





424 


684 


1,108 


3 


294 


297 


141 


202 


70 


10 


1,828 


577 


Hoke 





12 


59 


71 





8 


8 


4 


11 


2 


3 


99 


55 


District Totals 





436 


743 


1,179 


3 


302 


305 


145 


213 


72 


13 


1,927 


632 


District 13 




























Bladen 





7 


35 


42 


8 


1 


9 


2 


9 


4 





66 


32 


Brunswick 





18 


36 


54 


2 


10 


12 





6 


3 





75 


46 


Columbus 





5 b 


71 


127 


5 


2 


7 


29 


17 








180 


76 


District Totals 





81 


142 


223 


15 


13 


28 


31 


32 


7 





321 


154 


District 14 




























Durham 


1 


202 


217 


420 


5 


38 


43 


77 


70 


35 


19 


664 


214 


District 15A 




























Alamance 





84 


132 


216 


11 


29 


40 


15 


16 


3 


10 


300 


139 


District 15B 




























Chatham 





5 


56 


61 


1 


1 


2 


5 


11 


5 


14 


98 


61 


Orange 





51 


110 


161 


3 


8 


11 


24 


25 


3 


3 


227 


197 


District Totals 





56 


166 


222 


4 


9 


13 


29 


36 


8 


17 


325 


258 


District 16 




























■••■jrjf: V/( 





164 


283 


447 


8 


34 


42 


32 


40 


31 


15 


607 


263 


Scotland 





67 


107 


174 


1 


3 


4 


3 


15 


10 


4 


210 


123 


District Totals 





231 


390 


621 


9 


37 


46 


35 


55 


41 


19 


817 


3. 5 


District 17A 




























Caswell 





2 


5 


7 


2 


5 


7 


3 


4 








21 


16 


Rockingham 





70 


91 


161 


4 


24 


28 


12 


16 


12 


4 


233 


88 


District Totals 





72 


96 


168 


6 


29 


35 


15 


20 


12 


4 


254 


104 


District 17B 




























Stokes 





27 


13 


40 


6 


10 


16 


2 


2 


3 


1 


64 


27 


Surry 





30 


57 


87 


12 


L4 


26 


4 


26 


9 


2 


154 


70 



District Totals 



5/ 



!') 



127 



24 



42 



28 



12 



218 



97 



172 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

OFFENSES CONDITIONS 

Delinquent Undisciplined 



Children 
__ Parental Before 

Other Misde- Rights Grand Court for 

Capital Felony meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



District 18 



Guilford 


2 


290 


619 


911 


74 


111 


185 


65 


55 


27 


69 


1,312 


539 


District 19A 




























Cabarrus 





71 


102 


173 


2 


10 


12 


4 


23 


7 


10 


229 


81 


Rowan 





65 


227 


292 


48 


73 


121 


131 


106 


37 


10 


697 


141 


District Totals 





136 


329 


465 


50 


83 


133 


135 


129 


44 


20 


926 


222 


District 19B 




























Montgomery 





2 


23 


25 


1 


3 


4 


4 


16 


12 





61 


43 


Randolph 





135 


221 


356 


10 


52 


62 


31 


44 


29 


10 


532 


195 


District Totals 





137 


244 


381 


11 


55 


66 


35 


60 


41 


10 


593 


238 


District 20 




























Anson 








21 


21 











5 


6 








32 


27 


Moore 





45 


66 


111 





4 


4 


5 


60 


3 


10 


193 


52 


Richmond 





81 


100 


181 











2 


9 


3 


3 


198 


61 


Stanly 


2 


32 


33 


67 


2 


6 


8 


7 


3 


8 


1 


94 


46 


Union 





80 


165 


245 


4 


24 


28 


25 


51 


21 


8 


378 


173 


District Totals 


2 


238 


385 


625 


6 


34 


40 


44 


129 


35 


22 


895 


359 


District 21 




























Forsyth 





180 


321 


501 


34 


194 


228 


2 


66 


7 


16 


820 


433 


District 22 





























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 

District 23 






1 


24 


25 





7 


7 


1 


60 


134 


195 


1 


61 


62 





13 


17 


30 


14 


15 


29 


1 


5 


124 


130 


11 


39 


50 



79 299 



380 



26 



122 



148 



2 

21 

2 

2 

27 



5 

23 

9 

37 

74 



5 

10 

29 



3 

17 
1 

12 

33 



48 
326 

76 
241 

691 



40 
153 

46 
135 

374 



Alleghany 








16 


16 


1 


2 


3 





3 








22 


13 


Ashe 





13 


43 


56 


8 


3 


LI 


2 


28 


5 


5 


107 


35 


Wilkes 





26 


125 


151 


28 


60 


88 


49 


104 


58 


13 


463 


104 


Yadkin 





40 


133 


173 


8 


43 


51 


20 


25 


1 


6 


276 


77 


District Totals 





79 


317 


396 


45 


108 


153 


71 


160 


64 


24 


868 


229 


District 24 




























Avery 





3 


30 


33 


1 


16 


17 


4 


4 


3 


1 


62 


42 


Madison 





2 


2 


4 





3 


3 


2 


6 


4 





19 


15 


Mitchell 





2 


1 


3 


1 


1 


2 


6 


8 








19 


21 


Watauga 


1 


17 


16 


34 


1 


15 


16 


11 


20 


5 


7 


93 


64 


Yancey 





5 


5 


10 


5 


2 


7 


4 


7 


4 





32 


16 


District Totals 


1 


29 


54 


84 


8 


37 


45 


27 


45 


16 


8 


225 


158 


District 25 




























Burke 





33 


60 


93 


11 


51 


62 


8 


23 


6 


7 


199 


112 


Caldwell 





42 


75 


117 


59 


79 


138 


58 


40 


20 


10 


383 


126 


Catawba 





88 


86 


174 


17 


32 


49 


27 


23 


3 


3 


279 


134 


District Totals 





163 


221 


384 


87 


162 


249 


93 


86 


29 


20 


861 


372 


District 26 





























Mecklenburg 



502 812 1,314 



13 



193 206 



13 



113 



60 



46 



1,752 



684 



173 



MATTERS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE PETITIONS 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, 1985 -June 30, 1986 

OFFRNSKS CONDITIONS 

Children 
Delinquent Undisciplined ,, , , D„r„_„ 
| | Parental Belore 

Other Misdc- Rights Grand Court for 

Capital Felon> meanor Total Truancy Other Total Dependent Neglected Abused Petitions Total First Time 



District 27A 
Gaston 



172 467 639 



59 59 



18 



10 



738 



315 



District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 



District Totals 






67 


137 


204 


3 


8 


11 





39 


43 


82 


6 


20 


26 





106 


180 


286 


9 


28 


37 



9 
11 

20 



17 
16 

33 



7 
4 

11 



250 
139 

389 



116 
58 

174 



District 28 
Buncombe 



63 181 



245 



25 



228 253 



48 



51 



15 



620 



144 



District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 






5 


42 


47 


27 


7 


34 





20 


23 


43 


30 


26 


56 





6 


7 


13 


5 


4 


9 





38 


72 


110 


34 


31 


65 








4 


4 


19 





19 



3 
5 

32 
7 



11 

15 

1 

47 




6 
10 


17 

2 



11 

10 



3 

4 



112 
139 

23 
274 

36 



67 
64 
18 
61 
28 



District Totals 



69 



148 



217 115 



68 



183 



47 



74 



35 



28 



584 



238 



District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 



State Totals 






2 


24 




26 


3 


1 


4 


2 


16 




























2 








17 




17 


2 


1 


3 


3 


5 





16 


10 




26 


3 


33 


36 


10 


16 





9 


10 




19 


4 


9 


13 


7 


9 





2 


6 




8 


2 


3 


5 


3 


2 








5 




5 





6 


6 


1 


3 





29 


72 




101 


14 


53 


67 


26 


53 


6 4 


945 9 


627 


14 


,588 


673 


2,259 2 


932 


1,255 


2,106 



4 
2 
1 
10 
5 
2 


24 

855 



4 


56 


46 





4 


2 





29 


29 





98 


57 


1 


54 


44 


5 


25 


29 





15 


15 


10 


281 


222 


588 


22,324 


9,386 



174 



ON CO CO CTx 



cm oo m oo 


to 


■H O- 


<!• cm r-~ <f 


c^ 


r-^ m 



m rH ro o 

vfi 3\ (N u*i 



Ifl 


(A 


& 


_c 


w 


Of 


H 


= 


H 


1/5 


<* 


3 


£ 


< 


W 




-J 


VI 


►•^ 


CX 


UVEN 
»URTS 

986 


c 
u 
CO 




^o - 


M 




Z 


O H « 




taU § 




i— i -^ 


— 


c^ c* I 


« 


^^.1 


s 


Z£ £ 


>1 


m2» 


c 




■o 
c 

04 

a. 


as * 


Q4 

a 


ShS 




£* 


c 


tt ** 


4) 


O 




H 


■a 


«! 


c 


U 


o. 


HH 


•J5 


Q 


■5 


P 


3 


•-9 




Q 


CJ) 


^ 


C 



a s 



o o o o o o o 



O O CM O O <f O 



rH O i-l o o o o 



O O en cm o m o 



i-l O O O O O O 



N<tmNONO 



O -4 O O O O © r-l 



o o r-i o o r-l 



O CM o o o 



O O CM O O 



i-l o o o o 



o o en o 



en o cm en 



O O CM O 



n<tooh 



o o ^ o o o o 



o o o o o o o 



o oo r— o O -rr m 



O CM f- O O 



*-* r^ vo o r-- 



O r-l O O 



U1 •* CM o ■! 



in o i-l O O 



o> O CM o o 



CM r-l O O 



-3- cm rH in 



^O 00 o o 



cm r-i en 



O O r~ O 



m-)Nrf 



en o oo i-i 



CM en h o 



oo en o <* 



O r-l rH O 



O * M 4 



vO en O en 



vo m o -3- 



m oo o en 



o> en o en 



O r-l -* CM 



O r-i en o 



r-l CM CM rH 



en o> ct\ m 


^ 


en O >£> o 


CJN 


m r-l 


■-o 


N ^ N CO 


M1HN 


o 


O r-l CT\ CM 


CM 


h <r 


m 


r-i oo en r-l 


CM r-l 


in 


rH 


CM 


in 


m 







O 






o 






o 








O 






O 











H 




H 




H 






H 


i_i 


H 


r* 


H 


.* CO 


4-1 


CM 


C 


4-1 


en 




4J 


<t 






4-1 


m 


CD 


4-1 


>4D 


o 


4-1 


.*: c c 


CJ 




O 


o 






o 













> 


u 




4-1 


o 


CJ eo eo 


•H 


4-1 


4-1 4-1 


•H 


4J 


4-1 


•H 


4-) 






■H 


4-1 


O 


•H 


4-1 


■a a. 


•r-l 


3 IJ B 


K 


o 


u h ig 


u 


CJ 


CD O 


I-l 


o 




c 


fc4 


a 


c 


1-4 


CJ 


x i-i a 


U 


C <3 4J O -H 


j-> 


•H 


O C r-l C 


JJ 


•H 


U C CJ 


4J 


•rH 


c a 


o 


4-1 


•H 


eo u 


4-1 


•H 


CD eo O CO 


4J 


CD CO -H CO 3 3 


CO 


I-l 


«H i-l 1) i-l 


CD 


l-i 


cu ai in 


CO 


u 


•H CO O 


CO 


CO 


u 


3S CD 


CD 


M 


•H M-t M-l J3 


CD 


■a IS u <d cu o- er 


■H 


4-1 


3 CD 4-1 Ih J3 


•H 


U 


4J > r-| 4J 


•H 


4J 


rH CD r-l 


a. 


•H 


4-1 


T3 


•H 


4J 


4J *H 4J 4J 


■H 


O IJ U 4J CO VJ 


Q 


CO 


co -a u u co 


a 


CO 


M CO S 4J 


a 


CD 


ado 


B 


Q 


CD 


3 C 


a 


CO 


U iH Ij Ij 


a 


d £ 3 eg at eg ti 




■H 


CD >> CO >> CO 




•H 


CO r4 CO -H 




•H 


3 O C 


eo 




•H 


CD CD 




1-1 


CD CO CD 




C_> U U Q CJ Cu Cu 




Q 


pa as s h 3 




Q 


O u ex, Cu 




Q 


r-j o 


CO 




Q 


Z Cu 




a 


DO 33 a 2 





175 



00 CI CM 

to Mn 

CM CM CM 



CJ> in ro r^ 

cm o CO —I 

cm cm in 



<r <r o 
on o >£> 

<f r-l CO 



r-- O 



~< r^ in 



u 

.- 

3 
Z 



O O O O en 



m en eo --< 



—I CM 



O O O O r-l 



- 
< 

= 

z M 

•> Ob 

|§ 

•"5 C 



O O ^O O r^. 



CO CN CM 



en <r o o r- 



CM CM f*- 1-H 



o z 



C H « 
feU| 

cc 5 7 
&** ' 

z^ £ 

OS D 

< a - 

"-N H «-5 

>Z 

X - 

c 
- 

— 

Q 



in in (si 



CO O CO —* 



o nco m h 



^ H vO ^D 



-j- m ro o 



in r^ on f-t 



— < <r 



M > o oj a> 



c 


B 


CO 


CJ 


1J 


« 


■A 


M 


C 


u 


M 


U 


CU 


CCj 


CO 


tw 


O 


rx. 


> 


3 



o 

































H 








H 






H 






H 




O 












CM 








co 








4J 












4-> 




•O 




i-j 








4-> 


'J 

















a 











M 


O 


•H 


u 




4J 




a 


•H 


4J 


M 




•H 


4J 




a en 


■H 


U 


CJ 




y 


1-1 





M 


CJ 


H 




1j 


O 




•H 3 


u 


u 


•H 




•H 


4J 


u 


u 


•H 


M 




4J 


■H 


C 


3 J3 


tj 


CO 


M 




U 


11 


CO 


CO 


M 


cu 




CO 


M 


CU 


CO B 


CO 


■H 


o 


a) 





c 


c 


• M 


4J 


.Q 


CU 


■H 


u 


TJ 


c 3 


■H 


Q 


'/) 


M 


09 


u 


£ CU 


Q 


CO 





44 


Q 


CO 


a 


3 rH 


a 




■H 


rrj 


•H 


CO 


CU 




■H 









•H 


rH 


l-i O 






rj 


3 


Q 


S3 


-> J 




Q 


O 


X 




Q 


CQ 


CO 





176 



O <N 


r~j 


*£> (N 


O -H 




-* -J- 


^h m 


vD 


m cm 



^1 Cs| 


PI 


^o <r 


■* <f 


00 


r^ oo 


CM 00 


o 


.— 1 i-H 



O -H ^ 



in 
& 
W 
H 
H 

o h = 

Oh 

< w ^ 
w a ^ 

o 
u 

Q 

►-5 

Q 
< 



rH O rH 



0> .-H O 



On) 4J 



-O 
O O 



i-H C .4-1 







4-1 




o 




-H 


en 


U 


<U 


4-1 


M 


(0 





■H 


4-» 


Q 


CO 



177 



o o o o o 



in o on u~t 


O 


o co ci 


CM CI C-* — I 


CM 


.-< <r o 


.-I r- 1 


m 


oi iO n 



CM CM O O 



O O <f o 



O O ~T CM vO 



O O O u-i 



o o o o o 



s: 

H 
H 

< 

> 

— ! 



O O ON O ^f 



—I CO 



rJOD H CI 



cm mo ctn m 



O ft -3- O MO 



^ in 



^ <r o .— i 



OiO ho 



-* m o O o 



-a- o o m co 



Honido 



H 
as « 

u © 



OH 



— ^ = 



ir, 



Z£ £ 

as a - 

W 33 - 

><Z 

C 

- 



^ ^ CO O CM 



-3- <r <"o <— I ro 



o —< — < o <r 



OhcnO 



O .—I CM <T\ 



rsi m in n 



O O ^ ^D 



O C> r-l ir> 



.— t ro co r^ 



cm it* cm cm o <— " 



00 -^ vD fO fO 



U 



o ci cj sj in 



n«00> 



in a> co cm 



m co in o 



CO CM r-< oo 



CM MO Ol CO 



00 MO CM O O 



1j S h c 

u j: e o 

o o « -w 

o -H u c 

< s as to s 



T3 O -K 

C (0 -H 

fl TJ 0) « 



aj > > <u 

h fl id i< 



o 






o 






o 








o 




F- 




H 




H 






H 






CO 






-* 






m 








MD 


i-t 


CM 




u 


CM 




u 


CM 






4_t 


CM 


o 




>s 









o 















i~» 


C 


■H 


u 


i-t 


•H 


-u 




rH 


•H 


l-> 


u 





(0 


U 


O 


c H to 


U 







i-l 10 


l-l 


O 


t-l 


•H 


£ 0) C 


4-t 


•H 


O OJ 00 >-, 


i_» 


•H 




01 JO 


u 




'/) 


Lj 


oo a> -h 


0) 


u 


>-■ (o _c 3 a) 


10 


U 


<D 


3 3 


to 


u 


•H 


4J 


m dj ^ ^ 


'H 


1-1 


^ -h o to o 


•H 


u 


^ 


•O to 


-H 


u 


Q 


CO 


^H J= rH TJ 


O 


tn 


cu -a « <-> c 


Q 


<n 


W 


rH iJ 


Q 


01 




•M 


,— 1 y) -H CO 




■r-< 


> nj -h to co 




■H 


3 


CO co 




■H 




Q 


<C < 3 >- 




O 


< £ 2T 3 >■ 




Q 


oa 


o o 




Q 



178 



. 



H r-l (M 



O CM O O -» 



O O O O O O O 



H CT\ O CM h 



<r o o o h o o 



w 

H 
H 



t-H r-l O rH H 



H CTN O CM <— I 



-I O eo in inpj o 



>0 
ON 



o 
c 

3 



ON 



ID 5 

« u 

OH 

OH 

22 

o 

H 
< 
U 

o 

>-s 
Q 
<3 



o n o c-> o 



oo co i-i i~» o 



M HO MIO 



N H n H vO 



O O <M o o o o 



>fl O fl Ov vD 



o o o o o o o 



NOn •fmn 



O O r-l vC lA CM CM 



<r ocjN'to >j 



<r o <r> ^o 



(MO CO n^ h m 



IN CO 











o 










O 






o 




< 




CO 




H 






to 


H 






H 


01 


IN 




in 






00 




o> 


•H 




O 






H 


CM 




CM 


T3 


4-J 

u 


CM 




CM 




4-1 

o 


CO 




4J 

o 


a) 

4-1 


4-" 




4-1 


C 


H 


U 


0) 


4-1 


OH > 


•H 


4J 


Hi 


■H 


o 


o 




CJ 


to C 


S-. 


o 


Xi 


u 


0) i-H MH rH 


u 


u 


<U T3 C 


I-i 


H 


•H 


c 


•H 


r-{ i-H 


4-1 


•H 


e 


•H 


U 01 l-> >% 


i-i 


•H 


js a o o 


AJ 




>H 


o 


(J 


<u o 


m 


Ij 


O 


1J 


01 3 11 IB 


cn 


U 


O CO O 0) c c 


cn 


0) 


4-1 


4J 


4-1 


> o 


•H 


■u 


o 


4-1 


TJ Oii S 


•H 


4-1 


1< >i£ Si OH 


•rf 


4-1 


en 


in 


CO 


m c 


Q 


W 


c 


cn 


CQH U ID 


Q 


cn 


m to co >> <j u co 


Q 


CO 


■H 


id 


■H 


r-l -H 




■H 


3 


•r-l 


<U O O 3 M 




•H 


x: H u to co to S 




4-1 


Q 


o 


O 


O J 




D 


CO 


Q 


a E cu a) H 




Q 


uuoinSoi 




to 



179 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

1976-1985-86 



M 

I 1 

L 
I 
1 

O 0.9 
\ 
S 



o 
1 



0.8 



0.7 



i) 6 



5 



04 



(i 




All Cases 



Dispositions 




Dispositions 




Motor Vehicle 



Filings 




Dispositions 



Non-Motor 
Vehicle 



76 



77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 



The 8.7% increase in motor vehicle case filings and the 8. 1 % 
increase in non-motor vehicle case filings last year were 



accelerations of recent trends. Non-motor vehicle dispositions 
increased 7.4%. 



180 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Dispositions 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



1,151 
1,755 
1,963 
6,843 
1,563 
2,248 
1,443 

16,966 



815 
1,285 
1,242 
4,678 
1,014 
1,388 
1,071 

11,493 



349 
338 
648 
1,548 
572 
829 
351 

4,635 



1,164 
1,623 
1,890 
6,226 
1,586 
2,217 
1,422 

16,128 



District 2 

Beaufort 6,166 

Hyde 787 

Martin 4,460 

Tyrrell 735 

Washington 1,603 

District Totals 13,751 



3,276 
379 

2,701 
512 

1,105 

7,973 



2,622 
379 

1,544 
212 
494 

5,251 



5,898 
758 

4,245 
724 

1,599 

13,224 



District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 

District Totals 



7,482 

12,820 

894 

16,518 

37,714 



4,974 

7,006 

472 

8,210 

20,662 



2,777 

5,420 

370 

8,050 

16,617 



7,751 

12,426 

842 

16,260 

37,279 



District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 



4,060 

1,675 

14,210 

7,494 



2,572 

935 

6,769 

4,249 



1,880 

652 

7,020 

2,873 



4,452 

1,587 

13,789 

7,122 



District Totals 



27,439 



14,525 



12,425 



26,950 



District 5 






New Hanover 




18,085 


Pender 




3,409 


District 


Totals 


21,494 


District 6 






Bertie 




2,634 


Halifax 




9,182 


Hertford 




2,948 


Northampton 




3,568 


District 


Totals 


18,332 


District 7 






Edgecombe 




5,179 


Nash 




10,023 


Wilson 




6,335 



District Totals 



21,537 



8,842 
1,590 

10,432 



1,741 
5,492 
1,770 
2,218 

11,221 



3,285 
6,225 
4,087 

13,597 



8,542 
1,449 

9,991 



889 
3,482 
1,017 
1,446 

6,834 



1,588 
2,872 
2,512 

6,972 



17,384 
3,039 

20,423 



2,630 
8,974 
2,787 
3,664 

18,055 



4,873 
9,097 
6,599 

20,569 



District 8 
Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 



2,484 
7,134 
9,324 

18,942 



1,467 
3,549 
4,780 

9,796 



910 
3,112 
4,478 

8,500 



2,377 
6,661 
9,258 

18,296 



181 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Dispositions 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 



Wake 



2,997 
3,677 
3,963 
3,787 

1,644 

16,068 



54,572 



1,348 
2,168 
1,949 
2,090 
884 

8,439 



23,448 



1,456 
1,427 
1,888 
1,619 
769 

7,159 



29,531 



2,804 
3,595 
3,837 
3,709 
1,653 

15,598 



52,979 



District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 



District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 



District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 


Chatham 




Orange 




District Totals 


District 


16 



Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



6,997 
9,221 
5,159 

21,377 



35,448 
3,497 

38,945 



6,118 
5,030 
6,676 

17,824 
29,999 

12,706 



7,158 
10,801 

17,959 



15,742 
3,902 

19,644 



1,902 
10,202 

12,104 



3,173 

7,565 

10,738 



3,234 
4,274 
3,011 

10,519 



17,836 
2,127 

19,963 



3,000 
2,781 
3,165 

8,946 
16,047 

6,797 



3,916 
5,792 

9,708 



7,855 
2,385 

10,240 



932 
5,668 

6,600 



1,864 
4,588 

6,452 



3,344 
4,572 
2,138 

10,054 



15,491 
1,265 

16,756 



2,825 
2,132 
3,091 

8,048 



10,332 



5,382 



2,963 
5,337 

8,300 



6,100 
1,453 

7,553 



716 
3,957 

4,673 



1,378 
2,565 

3,943 



6,578 
8,846 
5,149 

20,573 



33,327 
3,392 

36,719 



5,825 
4,913 
6,256 

16,994 
26,379 

12,179 



6,879 
11,129 

18,008 



13,955 
3,838 

17,793 



1,648 
9,625 

11,273 



3,242 
7,153 

10,395 



1X2 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Dispositions 



District 18 
Guilford 



Total 

Filed 



64,583 



Waiver 



31,633 



Other 



30,215 



Total Dispositions 
61,848 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 



District Totals 



13,085 
12,629 

25,714 



7,508 
7,122 

14,630 



5,215 
4,921 

10,136 



12,723 
12,043 

24,766 



District 19B 




Montgomery 


3,189 


Randolph 


9,668 


District Totals 


12,857 


District 20 




Anson 


3,026 


Moore 


7,153 


Richmond 


4,836 


Stanly 


3,851 


Union 


7,709 


District Totals 


26,575 


District 21 




Forsyth 


39,381 


District 22 




Alexander 


1,915 


Davidson 


12,938 


Davie 


2,534 


Iredell 


11,574 


District Totals 


28,961 


District 23 




Alleghany 


1,097 


Ashe 


2,132 


Wilkes 


5,702 


Yadkin 


3,197 



District Totals 



12,128 



District 24 




Avery 


1,997 


Madison 


2,188 


Mitchell 


953 


Watauga 


4,260 


Yancey 


1,821 


District Totals 


11,219 


District 25 




Burke 


9,354 


Caldwell 


6,607 


Catawba 


15,409 



District Totals 31,370 

District 26 

Mecklenburg 66,783 



2,040 
5,933 

7,973 



1,780 
3,610 
2,851 
2,296 
4,654 

15,191 



18,399 



823 
6,653 
1,616 
6,403 

15,495 



622 
1,246 
3,502 
1,954 

7,324 



1,159 
1,537 
594 
2,916 
1,241 

7,447 



5,780 
3,715 
8,089 

17,584 



35,951 



1,102 
3,821 

4,923 



1,216 
3,330 
1,760 
1,411 
2,937 

10,654 



20,456 



878 
5,484 
1,082 
3,777 

11,221 



387 

686 

2,515 

1,193 

4.781 



646 
715 
400 
1,191 
544 

3,496 



3,468 
3,352 
6,978 

13,798 



32,094 



3,142 
9,754 

12,896 



2,996 
6,940 
4,611 
3,707 
7,591 

25,845 



38,855 



1,701 
12,137 

2,698 
10,180 

26,716 



1,009 
1,932 
6,017 
3,147 

12,105 



1,805 
2,252 
994 
4,107 
1,785 

10,943 



9,248 

7,067 

15,067 

31,382 



68,045 



183 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Total 
Filed 



Waiver 



Dispositions 



Other 



Total Dispositions 



District 26 



Mecklenburg 


66 


783 


District 27A 
Gaston 


20 


188 


District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 


9 

5 


373 
670 


District Totals 


15 


043 


District 28 
Buncombe 


17 


529 


District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


6 
4 
2 
5 

2 


331 
933 
036 
844 
505 


District Totals 


21 


649 


District 30 







Cherokee 2,983 

Clay 637 

Graham 517 

Haywood 6,144 

Jackson 2,506 

Macon 2,342 

Swain 1,948 

District Totals 17,077 

State Totals 839,168 



35,951 

9,655 

5,303 
2,802 

8,105 
11,192 



4,443 
3,563 
1,236 
4,200 
1,612 

15,054 



1,965 
305 
368 
4,177 
1,574 
2,414 
1,399 

12,202 

454,693 



32,094 

10,045 

3,639 
2,902 

6,541 
6,184 



2,145 
1,536 

611 
1,710 

555 

6,557 



650 
191 
252 

1,401 
801 

1,014 
573 

4,882 

358,939 



68,045 

19,700 

8,942 
5,704 

14,646 
17,376 



6,588 
5,099 
1,847 
5,910 
2,167 

21,611 



2,615 
496 
620 
5,578 
2,375 
3,428 
1,972 

17,084 

113,632 



84 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 







Begin 






Pending 






7/1/85 


District 1 






Camden 




10 


Chowan 




46 


Currituck 




76 


Dare 




245 


Gates 




19 


Pasquotank 




131 


Perquimans 




26 


District 


Totals 


553 


District 2 






Beaufort 




167 


Hyde 




38 


Martin 




181 


Tyrrell 




12 


Washington 




34 


District 


Totals 


432 


District 3 






Carteret 




753 


Craven 




778 


Pamlico 




63 


Pitt 




1,604 


District 


Totals 


3,198 


District 4 






Duplin 




184 


Jones 




51 


Onslow 




889 


Sampson 




432 


District 


Totals 


1,556 


District 5 






New Hanovei 




1,328 


Pender 




150 


District 


Totals 


1,478 


District 6 






Bertie 




39 


Halifax 




403 


Hertford 




104 


Northampton 


95 


District 


Totals 


641 


District 7 






Edgecombe 




630 


Nash 




838 


Wilson 




1,052 


District 


Totals 


2,520 


District 8 






Greene 




114 


Lenoir 




578 


Wayne 




1,103 



Filed 



5,817 



5,698 



22,977 



16,721 



12,635 
1,240 

13,875 



8,005 



16,958 



Total 
Caseload 



6,370 



6,130 



26,175 



18,277 



13,963 
1,390 

15,353 



8,646 



19,478 



Disposed 



144 


154 


127 


448 


494 


460 


502 


578 


513 


,035 


2,280 


1,900 


290 


309 


301 


,055 


2,186 


2,033 


343 


369 


328 



5,662 



3,150 


3,317 


2,966 


442 


480 


470 


1,249 


1,430 


1,192 


220 


232 


224 


637 


671 


634 



5,486 



4,912 


5,665 


4,825 


6,555 


7,333 


6,385 


723 


786 


725 


0,787 


12,391 


10,934 



22,869 



2,190 


2,374 


2,161 


550 


601 


554 


1,171 


12,060 


10,909 


2,810 


3,242 


2,948 



16,572 



11,850 
1,143 

12,993 



1,063 


1,102 


1,035 


4,346 


4,749 


4,144 


1,644 


1,748 


1,563 


952 


1,047 


962 



7,704 



5,156 


5,786 


4,836 


6,664 


7,502 


6,518 


5,138 


6,190 


5,152 



16,506 



847 


961 


858 


4,675 


5,253 


4,561 


6,105 


7,208 


6,290 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



88 . 9% 



89 . 5% 



87 . 4% 



90.7% 



84 . 9% 
82.2% 

84 . 6% 



89.1% 



84 . 7% 



End 
Pending 

6/30/86 



82.5% 


27 


93.1% 


34 


88.8% 


65 


83 . 3% 


380 


97.4% 


8 


93.0% 


153 


88 . 9% 


41 



708 



89.4% 


351 


97.9% 


10 


83.4% 


238 


96 . 6% 


8 


94.5% 


37 



644 



85.2% 


840 


87.1% 


948 


92.2% 


61 


88.2% 


1,457 



3,306 



91.0% 


213 


92.2% 


47 


90.5% 


1,151 


90 . 9% 


294 



1,705 



2,113 
247 

2,360 



93.9% 


67 


87.3% 


605 


89.4% 


185 


91.9% 


85 



942 



83.6% 


950 


86 . 9% 


984 


83 . 2% 


1,038 



2,972 



89 . 3% 


103 


86 . 8% 


692 


87.3% 


918 



District Totals 



1,795 



11,627 



13,422 



11,709 



87.2% 



1,713 



<85 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 





Begin 
Pending 

7/1/85 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


End 
Pending 

6/30/86 


District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


137 
211 
173 
287 
55 


1,885 
2,119 
1,808 
3,487 
807 


2,022 
2,330 
1,981 
3,774 
862 


1,899 
2,099 
1,776 
3,292 
778 


93.9% 
90.1% 
89 . 7% 
87.2% 
90.3% 


123 
231 
205 
482 
84 


District Totals 


863 


10,106 


10,969 


9,844 


89.7% 


1,125 


District 10 
Wake 


5,876 


28,094 


33,970 


28,140 


82.8% 


5,830 


District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 


375 

452 
284 


3,741 
5,393 
3,946 


4,116 
5,845 
4,230 


3,666 
5,185 
3,863 


89.1% 
88.7% 
91.3% 


450 
660 
367 


District Totals 


1,111 


13,080 


14,191 


12,714 


89.6% 


1,477 


District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 


3,716 
164 


21,721 
1,928 


25,437 
2,092 


20,783 
1,792 


81.7% 
85.7% 


4,654 
300 


District Totals 


3,880 


23,649 


27,529 


22,575 


82.0% 


4,954 


District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 


286 
393 

302 


2,292 
2,875 
3,792 


2,578 
3,268 
4,094 


2,307 
2,826 
3,678 


89.5% 
86.5% 
89.8% 


271 
442 
416 


District Totals 


981 


8,959 


9,940 


8,811 


88 . 6% 


1,129 


District 14 
Durham 


2,882 


14,529 


17,411 


13,433 


77.2% 


3,978 


District 15A 
Alamance 


557 


6,604 


7,161 


6,424 


89.7% 


737 


District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 


298 
532 


1,954 
4,009 


2,252 
4,541 


1,961 
3,816 


87.1% 
84.0% 


291 

725 


District Totals 


830 


5,963 


6,793 


5,777 


85.0% 


1,016 


District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 


738 
305 


10,168 
3,624 


10,906 
3,929 


9,899 
3,585 


90.8% 
91.2% 


1,007 
344 


District Totals 


1,043 


13,792 


14,835 


13,484 


90.9% 


1,351 


District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 


54 

448 


822 
4,695 


876 
5,143 


813 
4,590 


92.8% 
89 . 2% 


63 
553 


District Totals 


502 


5,517 


6,019 


5,403 


89.8% 


616 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 


197 
341 


1,209 
3,143 


1,406 

3,484 


1,292 
3,005 


91.9% 
86.3% 


114 
479 



District Totals 



538 



4,352 



4,890 



4,297 



87.9% 



593 



186 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 -June 30, 1986 





Begin 




Pending 




7/1/85 


District 18 




Guilford 


8,096 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


483 


Rowan 


372 


District Totals 


855 


District 19B 




Montgomery 


338 


Randolph 


611 


District Totals 


949 


District 20 




Anson 


185 


Moore 


484 


Richmond 


130 


Stanly 


315 


Union 


435 


District Totals 


1,549 


District 21 




Forsyth 


2,613 


District 22 




Alexander 


177 


Davidson 


1,118 


Davie 


89 


Iredell 


796 


District Totals 


2,180 


District 23 




Alleghany 


10 


Ashe 


72 


Wilkes 


336 


Yadkin 


92 


District Totals 


510 


District 24 




Avery 


77 


Madison 


82 


Mitchell 


72 


Watauga 


146 


Yancey 


54 


District Totals 


431 


District 25 




Burke 


553 


Caldwell 


594 


Catawba 


913 


District Totals 


2,060 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


7,267 



Filed 



30,429 



9,870 



7,352 



15,572 



5,070 



3,200 



Tolal 
Caseload 



38,525 



10,725 



8,301 



17,752 



5,580 



3,631 



Disposed 



29,390 



9,534 



7,083 



15,279 



5,012 



2,989 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



76 . 3% 



88.9% 



85.3% 



86.1% 



89.8% 



82 . 3% 



End 
Pending 
6/30/86 



9,135 



5,203 


5,686 


5,070 


89.2% 


616 


4,667 


5,039 


4,464 


88.6% 


575 



1,191 



2,269 


2,607 


2,205 


84.6% 


402 


5,083 


5,694 


4,878 


85.7% 


816 



1,218 



1,730 


1,915 


1,716 


89.6% 


199 


4,802 


5,286 


4,701 


88.9% 


585 


3,038 


3,168 


2,942 


92.9% 


226 


2,696 


3,011 


2,806 


93.2% 


205 


4,877 


5,312 


4,810 


90.5% 


502 


7,143 


18,692 


16,975 


90.8% 


1,717 


8,459 


21,072 


18,136 


86.1% 


2,936 


1,208 


1,385 


1,213 


87 . 6% 


172 


7,313 


8,431 


7,179 


85.2% 


1,252 


864 


953 


835 


87.6% 


118 


6,187 


6,983 


6,052 


86 . 7% 


931 



2,473 



384 


394 


355 


90.1% 


39 


659 


731 


652 


89.2% 


79 


3,145 


3,481 


3,085 


88 . 6% 


396 


882 


974 


920 


94.5% 


54 



568 



563 


640 


469 


73.3% 


171 


543 


625 


490 


78.4% 


135 


451 


523 


430 


82.2% 


93 


1,275 


1,421 


1,240 


87 . 3% 


181 


368 


422 


360 


85.3% 


62 



642 



4,188 


4,741 


4,159 


87.7% 


582 


3,762 


4,356 


3,699 


84 . 9% 


657 


6,508 


7,421 


6,427 


86.6% 


994 


4,458 


16,518 


14,285 


86.5% 


2,233 


8,143 


45,410 


34,989 


77.1% 


10,421 



187 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 



Begin 
Pending 

7/1/85 



Filed 



Total 
Caseload 



Disposed 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



End 
Pending 

6/30/86 



District 27A 
Gaston 



2,812 



13,449 



16,261 



13,131 



80.8% 



3,130 



District 27B 

Cleveland 

Lincoln 



429 
344 



4,996 


5,425 


4,835 


89.1% 


590 


3,152 


3,496 


3,100 


88.7% 


396 



District Totals 



773 



8,148 



8,921 



7,935 



1.9% 



986 



District 28 
Buncombe 



1,198 



12,190 



13,388 



11,793 



S.1% 



1,595 



District 29 



Henderson 


614 


3,543 


4,157 


3,552 


85.4% 


605 


McDowell 


173 


1,443 


1,616 


1,411 


87 . 3% 


205 


Polk 


77 


515 


592 


515 


87.0% 


77 


Rutherford 


615 


3,236 


3,851 


3,074 


79.8% 


777 


Transylvania 


153 


1,458 


1,611 


1,247 


77.4% 


364 


District Totals 


1,632 


10,195 


11,827 


9,799 


82.9% 


2,028 


District 30 














Cherokee 


144 


1,058 


1,202 


724 


60.2% 


478 


Clay 


33 


254 


287 


248 


86.4% 


39 


Graham 


95 


378 


473 


433 


91.5% 


40 


Haywood 


224 


2,415 


2,639 


2,251 


85.3% 


388 


Jackson 


90 


639 


729 


624 


85.6% 


105 


Macon 


164 


608 


772 


637 


82 . 5% 


135 


Swain 


121 


486 


607 


556 


91.6% 


51 


District Totals 


871 


5,838 


6,709 


5,473 


81.6% 


1,236 


State Totals 


65,032 


445,839 


510,871 


432,206 


84.6% 


78,665 



1X8 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 

CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

July 1, 1985-June 30, 1986 

MISDEMEANORS 



GUILTY PLEA 

(152,003) 



NOT GUILTY PLEA (TRIAL) 

(47,594) 




WAIVERS 

(55,811) 



OTHER 

(28,272) 



DISMISSALS 
(109,596) 



FELONY PROBABLE CAUSE MATTERS 



PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING 
WAIVED 
(16,799) 




PROBABLE CAUSE NOT FOUND 
(3,117) 



HEARD AND BOUND OVER 
(8,075) 



SUPERCEDING 
INDICTMENT 

(10,939) 



Guilty pleas predominate in the disposition of criminal 
non-motor vehicle cases in the district courts. The waivers 
referred to in the upper chart are waivers of trial in worthless 
check cases when the defendant pleads guilty to a magistrate. 



Included in the "other" category for the dispositions of mis- 
demeanors are changes of venue, waivers of extradition, no 
probable cause at initial appearance, and dismissals by the 
court. 



189 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 





Worthless 
Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 

Guilty 

Plea 


Dismissed 
by 
DA 


Other 


Felony 

Probable 

Cause 

Matters 


Total 
Disposed 




.Judge 


Magistrate 


District 1 


















Camden 





23 


24 


18 


12 


41 


9 


127 


Chowan 


20 


251 


22 


76 


65 


7 


19 


460 


Curri tuck 


21 


157 


115 


61 


101 


30 


28 


513 


Dare 


150 


676 


330 


178 


373 


95 


98 


1,900 


Gates 


16 


110 


10 


48 


37 


51 


29 


301 


Pasquotank 


163 


768 


27 


316 


451 


95 


213 


2,033 


Perquimans 


8 


135 


6 


59 


64 


34 


22 


328 


District Totals 


378 


2,120 


534 


756 


1,103 


353 


418 


5,662 


% of Total 


6.7% 


37.4% 


9.4% 


13.4% 


19.5% 


6.2% 


7.4% 


100.0% 


District 2 


















Beaufort 


211 


1,064 


611 


360 


295 


152 


273 


2,966 


Hyde 


8 


109 


121 


95 


50 


48 


39 


470 


Martin 


266 


381 


43 


153 


74 


177 


98 


1,192 


Tyrrell 


8 


66 


31 


52 


10 


20 


37 


224 


Washington 


119 


188 


26 


155 


59 


44 


43 


634 


District Totals 


612 


1,808 


832 


815 


488 


441 


490 


5,486 


% of Total 


11.2% 


33.0% 


15.2% 


14.9% 


8.9% 


8.0% 


8.9% 


100.0% 


District 3 


















Carteret 


679 


1,313 


700 


168 


1,597 


84 


284 


4,825 


Craven 


1,441 


2,332 


118 


482 


1,406 


230 


376 


6,385 


Paml ico 


48 


252 


121 


92 


170 


10 


32 


725 


Pitt 


3,055 


3,392 


291 


672 


2,526 


225 


773 


10,934 


District Totals 


5,223 


7,289 


1,230 


1,414 


5,699 


549 


1,465 


22,869 


% of Total 


22.8% 


31.9% 


5.4% 


6.2% 


24.9% 


2.4% 


6.4% 


100.0% 


District 4 


















Duplin 


493 


641 


6 


140 


325 


111 


445 


2,161 


Jones 


30 


145 


4 


158 


83 


68 


66 


554 


Onslow 


2,547 


4,863 


111 


463 


1,214 


877 


834 


10,909 


Sampson 


773 


1,156 


13 


92 


492 


303 


119 


2,948 


District Totals 


3,843 


6,805 


134 


853 


2,114 


1,359 


1,464 


16,572 


X of Total 


23.2% 


41.1% 


0.8% 


5.1% 


12.8% 


8.2% 


8.8% 


100.0% 


District 5 


















New Hanover 


1,215 


4,759 


2 


1,257 


2,442 


865 


1,310 


11,850 


Pender 


31 


428 


75 


123 


308 


114 


64 


1,143 


District Totals 


1,246 


5,187 


77 


1,380 


2,750 


979 


1,374 


12,993 


% of Total 


9.6% 


39.9% 


0.6% 


10.6% 


21.2% 


7.5% 


10.6% 


100.0% 


District 6 


















Bertie 


66 


356 


25 


140 


136 


221 


91 


1,035 


Halifax 


280 


1,361 


226 


780 


879 


305 


313 


4,144 


Hertford 


181 


638 


5 


135 


174 


363 


67 


1,563 


Northampton 


93 


288 


27 


142 


141 


161 


110 


962 


District Totals 


620 


2,643 


283 


1,197 


1,330 


1,050 


581 


7,704 


X of Total 


8.0% 


34.3% 


3.7% 


15.5% 


17.3% 


13.6% 


7.5% 


100.0% 


District 7 


















Edgecombe 


840 


902 


202 


1,352 


972 


298 


270 


4,836 


Nash 


1,730 


2,252 


143 


607 


1,068 


285 


433 


6,518 


Wilson 


919 


1,953 


170 


434 


1,086 


254 


336 


5,152 


District Totals 


3,489 


5,107 


515 


2,393 


3,126 


837 


1,039 


16,506 


X of Total 


21 AX 


30.9% 


3.1% 


14.5% 


18.9% 


5.1% 


6.3% 


100.0% 


District 8 


















Greene 


116 


226 


6 


70 


292 


86 


62 


858 


Lenoir 


152 


1,458 


515 


420 


1,339 


391 


286 


4,561 


Wayne 


1,186 


1,644 


92 


400 


2,186 


373 


409 


6,290 


District Totals 


1,454 


3,328 


613 


890 


3,817 


850 


757 


11,709 


X of Total 


12.4% 


28.4% 


5.2% 


7.6% 


32.6% 


7.3% 


6.5% 


100.0% 



190 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 





Worthless 
Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not 

Guilty 

Plea 


Dismissed 
by 
DA 


Other 


Felony 
Probable 

Cause 
Matters 


Total 
Disposed 




Judge 


Magistrate 


District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


398 
274 
150 
512 
79 


59 

861 

657 

1,058 

204 


16 
23 
157 
50 
56 


783 
300 
332 
527 
149 


306 
308 
309 
626 
179 


120 

155 

95 

196 

45 


217 

178 

76 

323 

66 


1,899 
2,099 
1,776 
3,292 
778 


District Totals 
% of Total 


1,413 
14.4% 


2,839 
28.8% 


302 
3.1% 


2,091 
21.2% 


1,728 
17.6% 


611 
6.2% 


860 
8.7% 


9,844 
100.0% 


District 10 
Wake 

% of Total 


5,797 

20.6% 


6,145 
21.8% 


2,919 
10.4% 


1,642 
5.8% 


7,200 
25.6% 


901 

3.2% 


3,536 
12.6% 


28,140 
100.0% 


District 11 
Harnett 
Johnston 
Lee 


891 

1,295 

898 


380 

1,742 

916 


28 
8 

14 


996 
515 
881 


761 
870 
626 


419 
501 
205 


191 
254 
323 


3,666 
5,185 
3,863 


District Totals 
% of Total 


3,084 
24.3% 


3,038 
23.9% 


50 
0.4% 


2,392 
18.8% 


2,257 
17.8% 


1,125 
8.8% 


768 
6.0% 


12,714 

100.0% 


District 12 

Cumberland 

Hoke 


5,689 
338 


6,113 
15 


140 



1,894 
921 


5,461 
328 


473 
59 


1,013 
131 


20,783 
1,792 


District Totals 
% of Total 


6,027 
26.7% 


6,128 
27.1% 


140 
0.6% 


2,815 
12.5% 


5,789 
25.6% 


532 

2.4% 


1,144 
5.1% 


22,575 
100.0% 


District 13 
Bladen 
Brunswick 
Columbus 


238 
203 
756 


483 

959 

1,366 


83 

247 

13 


524 
351 
351 


637 
804 
848 


151 

82 

222 


191 
180 
122 


2,307 
2,826 
3,678 


District Totals 
% of Total 


1,197 

13.6% 


2,808 
31.9% 


343 
3.9% 


1,226 
13.9% 


2,289 
26.0% 


455 
5.2% 


493 
5.6% 


8,811 
100.0% 


District 14 
Durham 

% of Total 


959 
7.1% 


5,250 
39.1% 



0.0% 


1,093 
8.1% 


4,101 
30.5% 


991 

7.4% 


1,039 
7.7% 


13,433 
100.0% 


District 15A 
Alamance 
% of Total 


484 
7.5% 


986 
15.3% 


277 
4.3% 


2,418 
37.6% 


834 

13.0% 


578 

9.0% 


847 
13.2% 


6,424 
100.0% 


District 15B 

Chatham 

Orange 


231 
371 


424 
1,070 


660 
308 


90 

228 


437 
1,372 


28 
171 


91 
296 


1,961 
3,816 


District Totals 
% of Total 


602 
10.4% 


1,494 
25.9% 


968 
16.8% 


318 
5.5% 


1,809 
31.3% 


199 

3.4% 


387 

6.7% 


5,777 
100.0% 


District 16 

Robeson 

Scotland 


1,417 
479 


4,321 
1,305 



87 


1,169 
654 


515 
265 


1161 
466 


1,316 
329 


9,899 
3,585 


District Totals 
% of Total 


1,896 
14.1% 


5,626 
41.7% 


87 
0.6% 


1,823 
13.5% 


780 
5.8% 


1,627 

12.1% 


1,645 
12.2% 


13,484 
100.0% 


District 17A 

Caswell 

Rockingham 


42 
324 


201 
1,651 


87 
158 


209 
960 


97 
527 


97 
376 


80 
594 


813 
4,590 


District Totals 
% of Total 


366 

6.8% 


1,852 
34.3% 


245 
4.5% 


1,169 
21.6% 


624 
11.5% 


473 
8.8% 


674 
12.5% 


5,403 
100.0% 


District 17B 

Stokes 

Surry 


72 
192 


302 
940 


29 
261 


143 
406 


288 
625 


175 
175 


283 
406 


1,292 
3,005 


District Totals 
% of Total 


264 

6.1% 


1,242 
28.9% 


290 

6.7% 


549 
12.8% 


913 
21.2% 


350 

8.1% 


689 
16.0% 


4,297 
100.0% 



191 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

















Felony 






Worthless 


Guilt} 


Plea 


Not 


Dismissed 




Probable 






Check 
Waiver 


Guilty 
Plea 


by 
DA 


Other 


Cause 
Matters 


Total 




Judge 


Magistrate 


Disposed 


District 18 


















Guilford 


1,770 


9,206 


1,267 


2,268 


10,847 


1251 


2,781 


29,390 


X of Total 


6.0% 


31.3% 


4.3% 


7.7% 


36.9% 


4.3% 


9.5% 


100.0% 


District 19A 


















Cabarrus 


652 


1,480 


169 


1,024 


920 


120 


705 


5,070 


Rowan 


338 


850 


175 


1,052 


696 


656 


697 


4,464 


District Totals 


990 


2,330 


344 


2,076 


1,616 


776 


1,402 


9,534 


Z of Total 


10.4% 


24.4% 


3.6% 


21.8% 


16.9% 


8.1% 


14.7% 


100.0% 


District 19B 


















Montgomery 


159 


393 


26 


320 


496 


661 


150 


2,205 


Randolph 


905 


1,473 


45 


597 


1,155 


124 


579 


4,878 


District Totals 


1,064 


1,866 


71 


917 


1,651 


785 


729 


7,083 


% of Total 


15.0% 


26.3% 


1.0% 


12.9% 


23.3% 


11.1% 


10.3% 


100.0% 


District 20 


















Anson 


117 


4 


136 


735 


438 


110 


176 


1,716 


Moore 


1,042 


907 


120 


446 


860 


791 


535 


4,701 


Richmond 


205 


845 


37 


477 


648 


300 


430 


2,942 


Stanly 


434 


711 


311 


369 


437 


249 


295 


2,806 


Union 


815 


1,319 


108 


660 


953 


458 


497 


4,810 


District Totals 


2,613 


3,786 


712 


2,687 


3,336 


1,908 


1,933 


16,975 


Z of Total 


15.4% 


22.3% 


4.2% 


15.8% 


19.7% 


11.2% 


11.4% 


100.0% 


District 21 


















Forsyth 


1,789 


6,528 





2,511 


4,988 


457 


1,863 


18,136 


% of Total 


9.9% 


36.0% 


0.0% 


13.8% 


27.5% 


2.5% 


10.3% 


100.0% 


District 22 


















Alexander 


100 


296 


26 


173 


337 


232 


49 


1,213 


Davi dson 


323 


1,770 


202 


1,072 


3,003 


521 


288 


7,179 


Davie 


56 


200 


6 


127 


278 


138 


30 


835 


Iredell 


548 


2,093 


373 


595 


1,912 


294 


237 


6,052 


District Totals 


1,027 


4,359 


607 


1,967 


5,530 


1,185 


604 


15,279 


X of Total 


6.7% 


28.5% 


4.0% 


12.9% 


36.2% 


7.8% 


4.0% 


100.0% 


District 23 


















Alleghany 


2 A 


13 


17 


160 


92 


22 


27 


355 


Ashe 


89 


147 





110 


4 


214 


88 


652 


Wilkes 


521 


861 


16 


584 


527 


339 


237 


3,085 


Yadkin 


57 


294 


1 


217 


99 


115 


137 


920 


District Totals 


691 


1,315 


34 


1,071 


722 


690 


489 


5,012 


% of Total 


13.8% 


26.2% 


0.7% 


21.4% 


14.4% 


13.8% 


9.8% 


100.0% 


District 24 


















Avery 


42 


54 


5 


94 


135 


91 


48 


469 


Madison 


13 


20 


13 


144 


193 


14 


93 


490 


Mitchell 


36 


55 


13 


45 


157 


97 


27 


430 


Watauga 


225 


282 


17 


63 


343 


77 


233 


1,240 


Yancey 


8 


19 


50 


114 


129 


20 


20 


360 


District Totals 


324 


4 30 


98 


460 


957 


299 


421 


2,989 


X of Total 


10.8% 


14.4% 


3.3% 


15.4% 


32.0% 


10.0% 


14.1% 


100.0% 


District 25 


















Burke 


470 


1,138 





225 


1,450 


500 


376 


4,159 


Caldwell 


284 


990 


349 


352 


937 


264 


523 


3,699 


Catawba 


566 


2,194 


104 


525 


1,747 


444 


847 


6,427 


District Totals 


1,320 


4,322 


453 


1,102 


4,134 


1,208 


1,746 


14,285 


% of Total 


9.2% 


30.3% 


3.2% 


7.7% 


28.9% 


8.5% 


12.2% 


100.0% 


District 26 


















Mecklenburg 


1,264 


12,548 


1,500 


1,786 


13,154 


1620 


3,117 


34,989 


% of Total 


3.6% 


35.9% 


4.3% 


5.1% 


37.6% 


4.6% 


8.9% 


100.0% 



192 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL 

NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

















Felony 






Worthless 
Check 


Gui 


Ity Plea 


Not 
Guilty 


Dismissed 
by 




Probable 
Cause 


Total 




Waiver 


Jud^e 


Magistrate 


Plea 


DA 


Other 


Matters 


Disposed 


District 27A 


















Gaston 


546 


3,582 


2 


1,154 


4,962 


1709 


1,176 


13,131 


% of Total 


4.2% 


27.3% 


.0% 


8.8% 


37.8% 


13.0% 


9.0% 


100.0% 


District 27B 


















Cleveland 


331 


1,437 


193 


310 


1,744 


508 


312 


4,835 


Lincoln 


393 


908 


134 


233 


929 


283 


220 


3,100 


District Totals 


724 


2,345 


327 


543 


2,673 


791 


532 


7,935 


% of Total 


9.1% 


29.6% 


4.1% 


6.8% 


33.7% 


10.0% 


6.7% 


100.0% 


District 28 


















Buncombe 


2,123 


5,793 


15 


584 


2,338 


159 


781 


11,793 


% of Total 


18.0% 


49.1% 


0.1% 


5.0% 


19.8% 


1.3% 


6.6% 


100.0% 


District 29 


















Henderson 


203 


1,587 


267 


158 


946 


69 


322 


3,552 


McDowell 


68 


497 


171 


140 


252 


44 


239 


1,411 


Polk 


8 


205 


17 


32 


163 


45 


45 


515 


Rutherford 


34 


1,041 


252 


510 


439 


514 


284 


3,074 


Transylvania 


95 


588 


107 


49 


291 


38 


79 


1,247 


District Total 


408 


3,918 


814 


889 


2,091 


710 


969 


9,799 


% of Total 


4.2% 


40.0% 


8.3% 


9.1% 


21.3% 


7.2% 


9.9% 


100.0% 


District 30 


















Cherokee 


90 


196 


3 


4 


253 


138 


40 


724 


Clay 


5 


14 


113 


29 


53 


8 


26 


248 


Graham 


8 


68 


66 


50 


201 


9 


31 


433 


Haywood 


38 


745 


99 


149 


802 


59 


359 


2,251 


Jackson 


25 


168 


71 


35 


157 


69 


99 


624 


Macon 


21 


130 


29 


50 


175 


153 


79 


637 


Swain 


17 


149 


46 


28 


205 


28 


83 


556 


District Totals 


204 


1,470 


427 


345 


1,846 


464 


717 


5,473 


% of Total 


3.7% 


26.9% 


7.8% 


6.3% 


33.7% 


8.5% 


13.1% 


100.0% 


State Totals 


55,811 


135,493 


16,510 


47,594 


109,596 


28,272 


38,930 


432,206 


% of Total 


12.9% 


31.3% 


3.8% 


11.0% 


25.4% 


6.5% 


9.0% 


100.0% 



193 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 













b VHH *W v j - 






Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Age 


District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Curri tuck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 




23 

28 
60 

318 
8 

127 
26 


1 
1 


8 

18 
2 


3 
1 
1 
3 

6 
5 




4 

4 

11 


1 
8 





40 











1 




27 
34 
65 

380 
8 

153 
41 


42.4 
58.6 
39.9 
70.7 
29.3 
44.3 
112.5 


18.0 
28.0 
28.0 
21.0 
25.0 
21.0 
62.0 


District Totals 

X of Total 


590 

83.3% 


30 
4.2% 


19 

2.7% 


28 
4.0% 


40 
5.6% 


1 

0.1% 


708 
100.0% 


62.5 


22.5 


District 2 

Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 




211 

in 
72 

8 
32 


11 



19 





28 



13 


4 


79 


62 

1 


19 


55 




3 

17 




351 
10 

238 

8 

37 


123.0 
12.4 

292.4 
26.4 
48.0 


40.0 

6.0 

215.0 

34.0 

21.0 


District Totals 
X of Total 


333 
51.7% 


30 
4.7% 


45 
7.0% 


142 
22.0% 


74 
11.5% 


20 
3.1% 


644 

100.0% 


178.4 


75.5 


District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 

Pamlico 

Pitt 




642 

726 

46 

1,057 


66 

62 

8 

92 


53 

63 

2 

162 


63 

59 

5 

140 


16 

38 



6 









840 

948 

61 

1,457 


72.8 
75.9 
67.1 
71.2 


45.0 
34.0 
34.0 
45.0 


District Totals 
X of Total 


2,471 
74.7% 


228 
6.9% 


280 
8.5% 


267 
8.1% 


60 
1.8% 



0.0% 


3,306 
100.0% 


72.9 


41.0 


District 4 

Duplin 

Jones 

Onslow 

Sampson 




182 

40 
960 
264 


7 



94 

16 


7 

3 

70 

9 


14 

3 
25 

3 


3 
1 
2 
2 








213 

47 

1,151 

294 


53.6 
50.9 
47.7 
45.2 


26.0 
19.0 
31.0 
31.5 


District 

X of Tota 


Totals 
1 


1,446 

84.8% 


117 
6.9% 


89 
5.2% 


45 
2.6% 


8 
0.5% 



0.0% 


1,705 
100.0% 


48.1 


28.0 


District 5 
New Hanovei 
Pender 




1,354 
139 


1 11 
11 


180 
19 


242 
55 


173 

16 


53 

7 


2,113 
247 


136.5 
146.8 


52.0 
74.0 


District 
X of Tots 


Totals 

1 


1,493 
63.3% 


122 
5.2% 


199 

8.4% 


297 
12.6% 


189 

8.0% 


60 
2.5% 


2,360 
100.0% 


137.6 


54.0 


District 6 

Bertie 

Halifax 

Hertford 

Northamptor 


i 


51 
432 
158 

69 


4 
20 
14 

8 


7 

62 

6 

2 


5 

90 

7 

6 



1 












67 
605 
185 

85 


63.4 
76.4 
42.6 
56.1 


27.0 
34.0 
21.0 
28.0 


District 
X of Tots 


Totals 

1 


710 
75.4% 


46 
4.9% 


77 
8.2% 


108 
11.5% 


1 

0.1% 



0.0% 


942 

100.0% 


67.0 


28.0 


District 7 
Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wilson 




618 
714 
676 


6'5 

9 2 

102 


7 6 
81 
94 


128 
71 

97 


61 
21 
64 


4 

5 
5 


950 

984 

1,038 


110.2 

82.1 

105.3 


49.0 
49.0 
60.0 


District 
X of Tot« 


Totals 

1 


2,008 

67.6% 


257 
8.6% 


251 
8.4% 


296 

10.0% 


146 
4.9% 


14 
0.5% 


2,972 

100.0% 


99.2 


53.0 


District 3 
Greene 
Lenoi r 
Wayne 




54 

533 
688 


3 
58 
49 


19 
105 


20 
38 
66 


7 

7 

10 








103 
692 
918 


125.2 
63.0 
67.9 


59.0 
39.0 
39.0 


District 
X of Tota 


Totals 
1 


1,275 
74.4% 


110 
6.4% 


180 
10.5% 


124 
7.2% 


24 
1.4% 



0.0% 


1,713 
100.0% 


69.4 


40.0 



194 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 



0-90 



District 9 



Franklin 


99 


Granville 


186 


Person 


163 


Vance 


371 


Warren 


54 


District Totals 


873 


% of Total 


77.6% 


District 10 




Wake 


3,853 


% of Total 


66.1% 


District 11 




Harnett 


354 


Johnston 


545 


Lee 


308 


District Totals 


1,207 


% of Total 


81.7% 


District 12 




Cumberland 


2,824 


Hoke 


216 


District Totals 


3,040 


% of Total 


61.4% 


District 13 




Bladen 


207 


Brunswick 


328 


Columbus 


320 


District Totals 


855 


% of Total 


75.7% 


District 14 




Durham 


2,059 


% of Total 


51.8% 


District 15A 




Alamance 


607 


% of Total 


82.4% 


District 15B 




Chatham 


247 


Orange 


459 


District Totals 


706 


% of Total 


69.5% 


District 16 




Robeson 


777 


Scotland 


270 


District Totals 


1,047 


% of Total 


77.5% 


District 17A 




Caswell 


58 


Rock i ngham 


489 


District Totals 


547 


% of Total 


88.8% 


District 17B 





Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 
% of Total 



100 
445 

545 
91.9% 



91-120 



7 

6 
14 
16 

5 

48 
4.3% 



436 
7.5% 



23 
43 
17 

83 
5.6% 



397 
18 

415 
8.4% 



20 
29 

20 

69 
6.1% 



382 
9.6% 



24 
3.3% 



13 
54 

67 
6.6% 



48 
4 

52 
3.8% 




18 

18 
2.9% 



7 
14 

21 
3.5% 



121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


13 


3 


1 


13 


14 


4 


16 


8 


4 


27 


39 


19 


13 


6 


6 


82 


70 


34 


7.3% 


6.2% 


3.0% 


548 


624 


238 


9.4% 


10.7% 


4.1% 


26 


11 


13 


58 


11 


3 


20 


10 


12 


104 


32 


28 


7.0% 


2.2% 


1.9% 


701 


685 


44 


33 


24 


9 


734 


709 


53 


14.8% 


14.3% 


1.1% 


5 


19 


20 


56 


23 


6 


49 


21 


5 


110 


63 


31 


9.7% 


5.6% 


2.7% 


423 


377 


422 


10.6% 


9.5% 


10.6% 


41 


59 


6 


5.6% 


8.0% 


0.8% 


10 


15 


6 


100 


63 


19 


110 


78 


25 


10.8% 


7.7% 


2.5% 


94 


55 


32 


6 


11 


10 


100 


66 


42 


7.4% 


4.9% 


3.1% 





2 


3 


22 


20 


4 


22 


22 


7 


3.6% 


3.6% 


1.1% 


1 


5 


1 


11 


8 


1 


12 


13 


2 


2.0% 


2.2% 


0.3% 



>730 





8 


10 



18 



131 
2.2% 



23 





23 
1.6% 



3 



3 

0.1% 







1 
1 

0.1% 



315 

7.9% 




0.0% 




30 

30 
3.0% 



1 
43 

44 
3.3% 







0.0% 







0.0% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


Pending 


Age 


Age 


123 


50.6 


27.0 


231 


114.3 


28.0 


205 


56.8 


26.0 


482 


105.1 


40.0 


84 


99.5 


50.0 


1,125 


91.8 


32.0 


100.0% 






5,830 


118.7 


62.0 


100.0% 






450 


128.0 


33.0 


660 


44.8 


20.0 


367 


55.6 


21.0 


1,477 


72.8 


25.0 


100.0% 






4,654 


92.7 


62.0 


300 


87.5 


55.0 


4,954 


92.4 


61.0 


100.0% 






271 


85.1 


39.0 


442 


68.3 


32.0 


416 


67.6 


38.0 


1,129 


72.1 


34.0 


100.0% 






3,978 


201.4 


87.0 


100.0% 






737 


58.2 


27.0 


100.0% 






291 


65.5 


48.0 


725 


152.1 


62.0 


1,016 


127.3 


55.0 


100.0% 






1,007 


68.6 


32.0 


344 


220.4 


21.0 


1,351 


107.2 


28.0 


100.0% 






63 


49.7 


14.0 


553 


46.4 


32.0 


616 


46.7 


32.0 


1-00.0% 






114 


55.3 


37.5 


479 


39.0 


27.0 


593 


42.2 


28.0 


100.0% 







195 



AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days)' 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Total 
Pending 


Mean 
Age 


Median 
Age 


District 18 




















Guilford 


5,272 


858 


1,296 


1,359 


344 


6 


9,135 


110.4 


74.0 


t of Total 


57.7% 


9.4% 


14.2% 


14.9% 


3.8% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 19A 




















Cabarrus 


525 


21 


43 


27 








616 


46.3 


21.0 


Rowan 


503 


30 


24 


9 


9 





575 


49.4 


27.0 


District Totals 


1,028 


51 


67 


36 


9 





1,191 


47.8 


25.0 


Z of Total 


86.3% 


4.3% 


5.6% 


3.0% 


0.8% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 19B 




















Montgomery 


320 


22 


38 


16 


6 





402 


55.1 


24.0 


Randolph 


648 


62 


53 


38 


14 


1 


816 


62.5 


39.0 


District Totals 


968 


84 


91 


54 


20 


1 


1,218 


60.1 


32.0 


% of Total 


79.5% 


6.9% 


7.5% 


4.4% 


1.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 20 




















Anson 


177 


2 


7 


9 


4 





199 


46.6 


19.0 


Moore 


372 


39 


43 


76 


55 





585 


112.1 


54.0 


Richmond 


201 


11 


8 


4 


1 


1 


226 


44.5 


20.0 


Stanly 


189 


9 


6 


1 








205 


28.3 


14.0 


Union 


412 


8 


10 


27 


6 


39 


502 


227.6 


25.0 


District Totals 


1,351 


69 


74 


117 


66 


40 


1,717 


119.4 


27.0 


% of Total 


78.7% 


4.0% 


4.3% 


6.8% 


3.8% 


2.3% 


100.0% 






District 21 




















Forsyth 


1,507 


114 


198 


379 


591 


147 


2,936 


216.7 


87.0 


% of Total 


51.3% 


3.9% 


6.7% 


12.9% 


20.1% 


5.0% 


100.0% 






District 22 




















Alexander 


138 


12 


2 


13 


7 





172 


82.2 


38.0 


Davidson 


896 


52 


79 


193 


32 





1,252 


91.1 


46.0 


Davi e 


96 


4 


7 


1 


7 


3 


118 


141.2 


25.0 


Iredell 


718 


45 


71 


30 


36 


31 


931 


116.5 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,848 


113 


159 


237 


82 


34 


2,473 


102.4 


41.0 


% of Total 


74.7% 


4.6% 


6.4% 


9.6% 


3.3% 


1.4% 


100.0% 






District 23 




















Alleghany 


32 


3 


2 


2 








39 


48.4 


28.0 


Ashe 


55 


3 


5 


5 


5 


6 


79 


157.7 


26.0 


Wilkes 


221 


25 


27 


32 


48 


43 


396 


219.0 


73.0 


Yadkin 


52 


1 





1 








54 


42.6 


24.5 


District Totals 


360 


32 


34 


40 


53 


49 


568 


182.0 


49.0 


X of Total 


63.4% 


5.6% 


6.0% 


7.0% 


9.3% 


8.6% 


100.0% 






District 24 




















kverj 


96 


13 


9 


41 


1 1 


1 


171 


133.9 


60.0 


Madi son 


69 


14 


7 


32 


13 





135 


155.3 


87.0 


Mitchell 


70 


2 


8 


11 


2 





93 


90.3 


45.0 


Watauga 


126 


15 


16 


16 


8 





181 


88.6 


48.0 


Yancey 


44 


4 





14 








62 


88.1 


49.0 


District Totals 


405 


48 


40 


114 


34 


1 


642 


114.9 


59.0 


X of Total 


63.1% 


7.5% 


6.2% 


17.8% 


5.3% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 25 




















'-, ■ , r - ■■■ 


432 


51 


67 


25 


7 





582 


67.0 


45.0 


Caldwell 


477 


34 


100 


39 


7 





657 


71.1 


39.0 


Catawba 


335 


52 


47 


41 


1 1 


8 


994 


69.0 


33.0 


District Totals 


1,744 


137 


214 


105 


25 


8 


2,233 


69.1 


38.0 


X of Total 


78.1% 


6.1% 


9.6% 


4.7% 


1.1% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


5,774 


798 


972 


1,498 


950 


429 


10,421 


180.7 


74.0 


% of Total 


55.4% 


7.7% 


9.3% 


14.4% 


9.1% 


4.1% 


100.0% 







196 






AGES OF PENDING CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Pending June 30, 1986 

Ages of Pending Cases (Days) 





0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Total 
Pending 


Mean 

Age 


Median 

Age 


District 27A 




















Gaston 


2,102 


238 


262 


384 


116 


28 


3,130 


102.8 


54.0 


% of Total 


67.2% 


7.6% 


8.4% 


12.3% 


3.7% 


0.9% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


532 


17 


23 


11 


4 


3 


590 


44.5 


19.0 


Lincoln 


332 


7 


19 


25 


10 


3 


396 


68.8 


28.0 


District Totals 


864 


24 


42 


36 


14 


6 


986 


54.2 


21.0 


% of Total 


87.6% 


2.4% 


4.3% 


3.7% 


1.4% 


0.6% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


1,190 


95 


137 


163 


10 





1,595 


68.0 


38.0 


% of Total 


74.6% 


6.0% 


8.6% 


10.2% 


0.6% 


0.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


436 


32 


39 


52 


29 


17 


605 


106.5 


40.0 


McDowell 


172 


10 


6 


13 


3 


1 


205 


58.1 


27.0 


Polk 


58 


7 


9 





2 


1 


77 


66.5 


38.0 


Rutherford 


537 


31 


35 


58 


91 


25 


777 


149.6 


42.0 


Transylvania 


210 


20 


62 


52 


14 


6 


364 


123.9 


80.0 


District Totals 


1,413 


100 


151 


175 


139 


50 


2,028 


119.7 


41.0 


% of Total 


69.7% 


4.9% 


7.4% 


8.6% 


6.9% 


2.5% 


100.0% 






District 30 




















Cherokee 


251 


25 


68 


76 


25 


33 


478 


182.9 


88.0 


Clay 


33 


2 


2 


2 








39 


56.7 


34.0 


Graham 


31 





1 


8 








40 


63.3 


24.0 


Haywood 


255 


40 


34 


22 


27 


10 


388 


118.1 


55.0 


Jackson 


78 





5 


1 


21 





105 


112.9 


40.0 


Macon 


84 


3 


2 


14 


12 


20 


135 


263.1 


52.0 


Swain 


38 


1 


5 


3 


2 


2 


51 


143.6 


14.0 


District Totals 


770 


71 


117 


126 


87 


65 


1,236 


155.9 


67.0 


% of Total 


62.3% 


5.7% 


9.5% 


10.2% 


7.0% 


5.3% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


52,261 


5,387 


7,280 


8,243 


3,970 


1,524 


78,665 


117.8 


50.0 


% of Total 


66.4% 


6.8% 


9.3% 


10.5% 


5.0% 


1.9% 


100.0% 







197 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 — June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



















Total 


Mean 


Median 






0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age 


Age 


District 1 






















Camden 




117 


6 


1 


3 








127 


34.9 


20.0 


Chowan 




439 


8 


2 


2 


5 


4 


460 


37.3 


16.5 


Currituck 




491 


12 


8 


2 








513 


29.7 


22.0 


Dare 




1,778 


b8 


39 


12 


3 





1,900 


31.0 


21.0 


Gates 




281 


10 


3 


7 








301 


32.9 


20.0 


Pasquotank 




1,952 


41 


24 


13 


2 


1 


2,033 


29.0 


21.0 


Perquimans 




308 


4 


6 


3 


3 


4 


328 


45.3 


19.0 


District 


Totals 


5,366 


149 


83 


42 


13 


9 


5,662 


31.7 


20.0 


% of Tota 


1 


94.8% 


2.6% 


1.5% 


0.7% 


0.2% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 2 






















Beaufort 




2,900 


23 


29 


9 


3 





2,966 


18.5 


11.0 


Hyde 




440 


2 


6 


15 


7 





470 


35.5 


15.0 


Martin 




1,075 


23 


20 


38 


24 


12 


1,192 


47.9 


13.0 


Tyrrell 




221 


1 


1 





1 





224 


25.7 


16.0 


Washington 




607 


2 


11 


14 








634 


22.7 


12.0 


District 


Totals 


5,243 


51 


67 


76 


37 


12 


5,486 


27.1 


12.0 


% of Total 


95.6% 


0.9% 


1.2% 


1.4% 


0.7% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 3 






















Carteret 




3,832 


276 


395 


242 


76 


4 


4,825 


62.4 


31.0 


Craven 




5,512 


298 


320 


199 


39 


17 


6,385 


45.9 


23.0 


Pamlico 




628 


46 


30 


15 


6 





725 


40.9 


21.0 


Pitt 




9,140 


670 


488 


358 


254 


24 


10,934 


59.7 


31.0 


District 


Totals 


19,112 


1,290 


1,233 


814 


375 


45 


22,869 


55.8 


28.0 


% of Tots 


1 


83.6% 


5.6% 


5.4% 


3.6% 


1.6% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 4 






















Duplin 




2,043 


56 


39 


19 


4 





2,161 


29.9 


21.0 


Jones 




518 


7 


17 


8 


4 





554 


35.0 


24.0 


Onslow 




10,083 


420 


288 


110 


8 





10,909 


31.4 


18.0 


Sampson 




2,676 


152 


77 


35 


4 


4 


2,948 


39.2 


26.0 


District 


Totals 


15,320 


635 


421 


172 


20 


4 


16,572 


32.7 


20.0 


X of Total 


92.4% 


3.8% 


2.5% 


1.0% 


0.1% 


.0% 


100.0% 






District 5 






















New Hanover 


11,017 


310 


222 


188 


96 


17 


11,850 


35.9 


19.0 


Pender 




1,025 


43 


34 


27 


11 


3 


1,143 


40.2 


17.0 


District 


Totals 


12,042 


353 


256 


215 


107 


20 


12,993 


36.2 


19.0 


% of Total 


92.7% 


2.7% 


2.0% 


1.7% 


0.8% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 6 






















Bertie 




983 


33 


10 


2 


b 


1 


1,035 


26.6 


16.0 


Halifax 




3,727 


162 


139 


74 


37 


5 


4,144 


4203.0 


24.0 


Hertford 




1,489 


41 


24 


4 


3 


2 


1,563 


30.0 


20.0 


Northampton 


885 


43 


21 


10 


3 





962 


29.4 


16.0 


District 


Totals 


7,084 


279 


194 


90 


49 


8 


7,704 


36.1 


21.0 


X of Total 


92.0% 


3.6% 


2.5% 


1.2% 


0.6% 


0.1% 


100.0% 






District 7 






















Edgecombe 




4,115 


251 


263 


177 


29 


1 


4,836 


47.9 


25.0 


Nash 




5,551 


353 


338 


227 


29 


20 


6,518 


50.6 


28.0 


Wilson 




3,970 


380 


312 


340 


107 


43 


5,152 


75.6 


36.0 


District 


Totals 


13,636 


984 


913 


744 


165 


64 


16,506 


57.6 


29.0 


X of Total 


82.6% 


6.0% 


5.5% 


4.5% 


1.0% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 8 






















Greene 




741 


55 


45 


13 


3 


1 


858 


44.0 


29.0 


Lenoir 




3,847 


294 


256 


153 


11 





4,561 


50.1 


32.0 


Wayne 




4,928 


506 


420 


365 


70 


1 


6,290 


63.3 


37.0 


District 


Totals 


9,516 


855 


721 


531 


84 


2 


11,709 


56.7 


35.0 


X of Total 


81.3% 


7.3% 


6.2% 


4.5% 


0.7% 


Ml 


100.0% 







198 



0-90 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 

Tolal 

366-730 >730 Disposed 



91-120 



121-180 



181-365 



Mean 
Age 



Median 

Age 



District 9 



Franklin 


1,761 


62 


41 


29 


Granville 


1,946 


57 


44 


38 


Person 


1,626 


49 


51 


19 


Vance 


2,962 


136 


119 


68 


Warren 


718 


14 


28 


17 


District Totals 


9,013 


318 


283 


171 


% of Total 


91.6% 


3.2% 


2.9% 


1.7% 


District 10 










Wake 


22,379 


1,704 


1,488 


1,970 


% of Total 


79.5% 


6.1% 


5.3% 


7.0% 


District 11 










Harnett 


3,315 


131 


83 


84 


Johnston 


4,725 


204 


165 


89 


Lee 


3,563 


100 


131 


57 


District Totals 


11,603 


435 


379 


230 


% of Total 


91.3% 


3.4% 


3.0% 


1.8% 


District 12 










Cumberland 


15,305 


1,696 


1,923 


1,732 


Hoke 


1,537 


129 


103 


22 


District Totals 


16,842 


1,825 


2,026 


1,754 


% of Total 


74.6% 


8.1% 


9.0% 


7.8% 


District 13 










Bladen 


2,100 


88 


57 


30 


Brunswick 


2,428 


169 


97 


112 


Columbus 


3,390 


115 


83 


85 


District Totals 


7,918 


372 


237 


227 


% of Total 


89.9% 


4.2% 


2.7% 


2.6% 


District 14 










Durham 


10,573 


963 


968 


685 


% of Total 


78.7% 


7.2% 


7.2% 


5.1% 


District 15A 










Alamance 


6,106 


141 


108 


60 


% of Total 


95.0% 


2.2% 


1.7% 


0.9% 


District 15B 










Chatham 


1,748 


68 


69 


61 


Orange 


3,228 


223 


189 


120 


District Totals 


4,976 


291 


258 


181 


% of Total 


86.1% 


5.0% 


4.5% 


3.1% 


District 16 










Robeson 


9,330 


210 


218 


132 


Scotland 


3,413 


60 


35 


38 


District Totals 


12,743 


270 


253 


170 


% of Total 


94.5% 


2.0% 


1.9% 


1.3% 


District 17A 










Caswell 


788 


4 


10 


5 


Rockingham 


4,337 


97 


58 


70 


District Totals 


5,125 


101 


68 


75 


% of Total 


94.9% 


1.9% 


1.3% 


1.4% 


District 17B 










Stokes 


1,151 


90 


29 


19 


Surry 


2,670 


160 


121 


47 


District Totals 


3,821 


250 


150 


66 


% of Total 


88.9% 


5.8% 


3.5% 


1.5% 



4 
13 
25 

5 

1 

48 
0.5% 



553 
2.0% 



40 

2 

10 

52 
0.4% 



91 

1 

92 

0.4% 



26 
13 

5 

44 
0.5% 



111 
0.8% 



9 

0.1% 



12 
51 

63 
1.1% 



7 
39 

46 
0.3% 



5 
28 

33 

0.6% 



0.2% 



2 
1 
6 
2 


11 

0.1% 



46 
0.2% 



13 


2 

15 
0.1% 



36 



36 

0.2% 



6 
7 



13 

0.1% 



133 
1.0% 




0.0% 



3 

5 

8 

0.1% 



2 


2 
.0% 



1 


1 

.0% 



1 
1 

2 

.0% 



1,899 
2,099 
1,776 
3,292 
778 

9,844 
100.0% 



28,140 
100.0% 



3,666 
5,185 
3,863 

12,714 
100.0% 



20,783 
1,792 

22,575 

100.0% 



2,307 
2,826 
3,678 

8,811 

100.0% 



13,433 
100.0% 



6,424 
100.0% 



1,961 
3,816 

5,777 
100.0% 



9,899 
3,585 

13,484 
100.0% 



813 
4,590 

5,403 

100.0% 



1,292 
3,005 

4,297 
100.0% 



31.8 
33.3 
45.8 
39.0 
29.1 

36.8 



67.8 



36.5 



67.4 
44.0 

65.5 



42.6 



72.6 



30.9 



42.9 
53.7 

50.0 



26.1 
29.4 

27.0 



27.1 
35.0 

33.8 



43.9 
43.0 

43.3 



17.0 
14.0 
25.0 
22.0 
13.0 

20.0 



39.0 



41.7 


18.0 


34.6 


21.0 


34.2 


18.0 



19.0 



37.0 
31.0 

37.0 



43.8 


22.0 


48.1 


27.0 


37.6 


24.0 



25.0 



34.0 



21.0 



23.0 
30.0 

28.0 



14.0 
15.0 

14.0 



15.0 
22.0 

21.0 



33.0 
30.0 

31.0 



199 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 



- 4 (I 



District 18 
Guilford 
% of Total 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 

Rowan 



18 


,552 




53.1% 


u 


,712 


4 


,212 



District Totals 8,924 
% of Total 93.6% 



District 19B 




Montgomery 


1,970 


Randolph 


4,378 


District Totals 


6,348 


% of Total 


89.6% 


District 20 




Anson 


1,515 


Moore 


4,338 


Richmond 


2,817 


Stanly 


2,658 


Union 


4,547 



District Totals 15,875 
% of Total 93.5% 

District 21 
Forsyth 

% of Total 

District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 13,056 
% of Total 85.5% 

District 23 



17 


,024 




33.9% 


1 


,113 


6 


,041 




736 


5 


,166 



Alleghany 


344 


Ashe 


581 


Wilkes 


2,842 


Yadkin 


858 


District Totals 


4,625 


X of Total 


92.3% 


District 24 




Avery 


387 


Madison 


405 


Mitchell 


365 


Watauga 


1,037 


Yancey 


310 


District Totals 


2,504 


X of Total 


83.8% 


District 25 





Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



3,545 
3,073 
5,428 



District Totals 12,046 
X of Total 84.3% 



91-120 



2,583 
8.8% 



183 
96 

279 
2.9% 



97 
246 

343 
4.8% 



70 

135 

41 

72 
136 

454 
2.7% 



352 

1.9% 



44 
479 

59 
281 

863 

5.6% 



6 
26 
81 
i6 

149 
3.0% 



2>> 
38 
38 
64 
27 

187 
6.3% 



265 
184 
421 

870 

6.1% 



121-180 



2,978 
10.1% 



77 
90 

167 
1.8% 



63 
163 

226 
3.2% 



75 
102 
47 
61 
62 

347 
2.0% 



244 
1.3% 



24 

278 

21 

354 

677 

4.4% 



4 

16 

Y2 
17 

89 
1.8% 



28 
25 
5 
54 
12 

124 
4.1% 



153 
212 
291 

656 
4.6% 



181-365 



3,619 

12.3% 



90 
63 

153 

1.6% 



72 
67 

139 

2.0% 



36 

61 
33 
13 

47 

190 
1.1% 



199 

1.1% 



21 

268 

13 

173 

475 
3.1% 



1 

16 

19 

2 

38 
0.8% 



18 

18 
16 

72 

9 

133 
4.4% 



174 
198 
261 

633 
4.4% 



366-730 



1,602 
5.5% 



7 
3 

10 
0.1% 



3 

21 



24 
0.3% 



15 
48 

4 

2 
12 

81 

0.5% 



178 
1.0% 



105 
6 

34 

153 
1.0% 




4 
7 
7 

18 
0.4% 



15 

3 

6 
13 

2 

39 

1.3% 



18 
32 
25 

75 
0.5% 



.730 



56 

0.2% 



1 

.0% 





3 

3 

.0% 



5 
17 


6 

28 
0.2% 



139 
0.8% 



3 

8 



44 

55 

0.4% 





9 

84 



93 
1.9% 



1 
1 

o 



2 
0.1% 



4 
O 
1 

5 

.0% 



Total 


Mean 


Median 


Disposed 


Age 


Age 


29,390 


103.7 


60.0 


100.0% 






5,070 


37.1 


26.0 


4,464 


33.3 


22.0 


9,534 


35.3 


24.0 


100.0% 






2,205 


38.9 


24.0 


4,878 


46.1 


33.0 


7,083 


43.9 


31.0 


100.0% 






1,716 


49.3 


27.0 


4,701 


37.9 


18.0 


2,942 


27.3 


16.0 


2,806 


28.9 


19.0 


4,810 


31.0 


17.0 


16,975 


33.8 


19.0 


100.0% 






18,136 


41.8 


22.0 


100.0% 






1,213 


42.4 


26.0 


7,179 


54.3 


28.0 


835 


43.9 


27.0 


6,052 


59.7 


31.0 


15,279 


54.9 


29.0 


100.0% 






355 


26.3 


18.0 


652 


45.4 


15.0 


3,085 


57.4 


15.0 


920 


28.5 


14.0 


5,012 






100.0% 






469 


66.1 


31.0 


490 


56.5 


36.0 


430 


55.2 


36.5 


1,240 


51.3 


24.0 


360 


48.5 


36.0 


2,989 


114.9 


59.0 


100.0% 






4,159 


48.8 


27.0 


3,699 


53.4 


28.0 


6,427 


49.3 


28.0 


14,285 


50.2 


28.0 


100.0% 







200 



AGES OF DISPOSED CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

Ages of Cases Disposed July 1, 1985 - June 30, 1986 

Ages of Disposed Cases (Days) 

















— Total 


Mean 


Median 




0-90 


91-120 


121-180 


181-365 


366-730 


>730 


Disposed 


Age 


Age 


District 26 




















Mecklenburg 


27,160 


2,426 


2,188 


2,309 


743 


163 


34,989 


71.5 


35.0 


% of Total 


77.6% 


6.9% 


6.3% 


6.6% 


2.1% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 27A 




















Gaston 


9,979 


1,186 


943 


489 


470 


64 


13,131 


80.4 


473.0 


% of Total 


76.0% 


9.0% 


7.2% 


3.7% 


3.6% 


0.5% 


100.0% 






District 27B 




















Cleveland 


4,584 


107 


50 


55 


22 


17 


4,835 


39.9 


21.0 


Lincoln 


2,926 


80 


36 


46 


11 


1 


3,100 


35.5 


23.0 


District Totals 


7,510 


187 


86 


101 


33 


18 


7,935 


38.2 


22.0 


% of Total 


94 . 6% 


2.4% 


1.1% 


1.3% 


0.4% 


0.2% 


100.0% 






District 28 




















Buncombe 


10,675 


347 


243 


411 


115 


2 


11,793 


42.5 


24.0 


% of Total 


90.5% 


2.9% 


2.1% 


3.5% 


1.0% 


.0% 


100.0% 






District 29 




















Henderson 


3,188 


39 


115 


91 


53 


16 


3,552 


53.9 


29.0 


McDowell 


1,316 


28 


29 


16 


15 


7 


1,411 


45.9 


23.0 


Polk 


436 


41 


22 


15 





1 


515 


43-. 8 


27.0 


Rutherford 


2,529 


201 


177 


103 


52 


12 


3,074 


66.6 


36.0 


Transylvania 


1,085 


64 


58 


31 


7 


2 


1,247 


45.9 


23.0 


District Totals 


8,554 


423 


401 


256 


127 


38 


9,799 


55.2 


30.0 


% of Total 


87.3% 


4.3% 


4.1% 


2.6% 


1.3% 


0.4% 


100.0% 






District 30 




















Cherokee 


611 


56 


31 


25 


1 





724 


54.9 


44.0 


Clay 


223 


L0 


1 


12 


2 





248 


34.1 


13.5 


Graham 


341 


33 


33 


12 


11 


3 


433 


73.1 


41.0 


Haywood 


2,078 


68 


70 


23 


8 


4 


2,251 


36.1 


21.0 


Jackson 


561 


14 


18 


29 


2 





624 


41.7 


27.0 


Macon 


493 


29 


38 


21 


28 


28 


637 


107.4 


27.0 


Swain 


473 


36 


26 


13 


7 


1 


556 


56.1 


38.0 


District Totals 


4,780 


246 


217 


135 


59 


36 


5,473 


52.4 


27.0 


% of Total 


87.3% 


4.5% 


4.0% 


2.5% 


1.1% 


0.7% 


100.0% 






State Totals 


366,030 


22,161 


19,692 


17,553 


5,636 


1,134 


432,206 


54.3 


28.0 


% of Total 


84 . 7% 


5.1% 


4.6% 


4.1% 


1.3% 


0.3% 


100.0% 







201 



'STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 2177